6 ms·

Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. I know for sure what I am perceiving. Forget about if it is a simulation or n

by prmph 5mo ago

Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. I know for sure what I am perceiving. Forget about if it is a simulation or not: it is still what I am perceiving. There is nothing else I can be sure of. So you are correct that it is, in some sense, un-explorable. However, if the above is the reason, then nothing else is explorable also; you cannot prove that we are not in a simulation, and in a sense it does not matter. If you accept that we assume we are not in a simulation and the knowledge we have matters, then consciousness is also open to exploration, and it is not only a philosophical thing. There are several hard questions about consciousness that are meaningful in this frame: - Why do some things appear to be conscious and other not so? - Is there only one consciousness in the universe, or multiple? - Is consciousness local and embodied, or not? - Would restoring the physical substrate of consciousness (if possible) lead to the same consciousness, or an identical one? Does this distinction between "same" and "identical" consciousnesses even make sense? Etc

kaashif 5mo ago
Why does whether we're in a simulation or not matter for whether anything is explorable? You can explore how the simulation works, there's just some other layer you can't explore. Or maybe you can somehow. When you look at the stars, are they real or a simulation in your brain? Does that mean you can't explore them?
- LoganDark 5mo ago
  > When you look at the stars, are they real or a simulation in your brain? This is unknowable.
  - smackeyacky 5mo ago
    It is knowable isn’t it? We know our brains play a variety of tricks to get a cohesive view out of two wildly complicated but deeply flawed meat sensors. That fits the definition of a simulation.
    - LoganDark 5mo ago
      What's unknowable is whether or not there are real stars that correspond with what you seem to observe; not whether or not your observations themselves are the real stars.
      - smackeyacky 5mo ago
        Didn’t we already work out they are similar in their spectral output to the Sun, enough to conclude they are the same kind of thing? And observing their movements makes them far away. Do each of us have to do the experiments again to validate that we know what they are?
        nemomarx 5mo ago
        Something could only appear to be similar to the Sun. We have to trust in observation at some level for all of those experiments to be valid, basically, which means first believing that you're conscious and second believing that you can experience reality and so on from there. You can never really disprove that some malicious entity is just making you think you're seeing the stars and talking to people, if you want to go back to philosophy about it. There's a bit of assumed faith
        pixl97 5mo ago
        [dead]
    - zchrykng 5mo ago
      Part of the argument is that you can only know what you experience. But, if this is a simulation, "you" could be a program running on a computer and your every experience is just piped directly into your consciousness without any underlying physical reality. You might even not be interacting with other people in the simulation, it could be just you and everything else is simulated without being similar to whatever existence you have. I don't agree with this argument, but it circulates occasionally.
mjburgess 5mo ago
> Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. These statements conflate, as idealists do, epistemology and ontology. What we know "for sure" has no bearing on what's real. These are entirely separate questions. What an ape might, or might not, feel certain (or any which way about) says nothing about where an ape finds itself. Of course, this is a great injury to our ego, and sense of power to determine the nature of the world by our mind alone -- but such is life. The world is not human, not at all like a human, and nothing about it follows from us at all. The world is not made in our image. Consciousness is a derivative, secondary phenomenon which is a measurement process occurring in the body of an ape, and whatever it manages to measure with any clarity, has no impact on the nature of that world.
- qsera 5mo ago
  >Consciousness is a derivative, secondary phenomenon which is a measurement process occurring in the body of an ape Can you define existence without depending on or referring to consciousness?
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mjburgess 5mo ago
    Yes. Though i think you're committing the gentic fallacy here, which is the core fallacy at the heart of idealism and much 19th C. german philosophy. The properties of the origin of somethign imply nothing about the properties of the product. That a bread factory is made of metal, does not mean bread is. That in my statement of things in language I am conscious of what I state, says nothing about the truth (or other such properties) of what I say. A photographic plate is made of metal, the mountain it photographs, of mud. I am conscious, but when I say, "reality is all that which is extended in space and time" -- the truth of that proposition has nothing to do with my being consiouss -- it is a loaf of bread, a photograph, a product of a process invovling consiousness but in none of its properties, depends upon it. Every relevant thing we do requires consciousness -- just as everythign a thermometer does requires, say, its own mercury -- but in measuring coffee's temperature, coffee is in no way mercury. And when we measre the world, by photographing it with consciousness, it is in no way conscious.
Xcelerate 5mo ago
> Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. > I know for sure what I am perceiving This reflects my view. And I’ve always found it mildly amusing that beings I cannot prove to myself are perceiving attempt to convince me that I’m not perceiving, when that’s exactly what I’m maximally sure of. Imagine arguing with an LLM designed to convince you that you’re not real. It would be weird, wouldn’t it?
- pixl97 5mo ago
  > It would be weird, wouldn’t it? That depends how it tried and what influences the LLM had on the outside world. For example if the LLM could drug you, either by convincing you to take drugs, or trick you into doing it, then convincing you that you're not real becomes monumentally easy. Derealization can be a monumentally profound/terrifying experience to your psyche.
vidarh 5mo ago
> you cannot prove that we are not in a simulation, and in a sense it does not matter I'd consider myself a materialist (in the philosophical sense) and this is why (and I agree with the rest of your comment to) We can not know, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary (e.g. someone metaphorically popping their head in from "outside" and revealing another layer to us), while it is important to understand that we do not know, it is more productive to assume in the absence of evidence, whether it is "real" or subjective or a simulation. As long as it appears to us to follow consistent rules, we can explore those rules, and explore our apparent material reality.
visarga 5mo ago
> Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. Who invented the words "consciousness" "reality" "fundamental" that you are now using? you are using language invented elsewhere while claiming you can't be sure of its reality. Are you also claiming you can't be sure someone had to create and raise you to get to the point of asking such questions? We are downstream from parents and society. The whole discussion here is anchored on individual level, but we are not viable outside society. It's like extracting one cell from one organ and saying it is mysterious why it is like that, while ignoring the organism and the evolution. If society fails, human die too. If a human makes a fatal mistake, the cells in their body die too. We depend on top level doing its job to keep the lower layers viable.
- prmph 5mo ago
  > You are using language invented elsewhere while claiming you can't be sure of its reality. Your senses are the only thing on which this statement rests. Your don't know anything like "language", "invented" etc. All you know is what your mind and your senses tell you. And, yes, engaging with you on this topic, and my argument, is also included in what I refer to as my perception. I have no way to prove that you are even conscious, or that anything like language or invention actually are real, whatever real means.
  - aerodexis 5mo ago
    So it's through the senses that one attains mathematical knowledge?
    - nothinkjustai 5mo ago
      Is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?
- anon-3988 5mo ago
  > Are you also claiming you can't be sure someone had to create and raise you to get to the point of asking such questions? We are downstream from parents and society. Yes exactly. You are sure of nothing except the fact this now exists. The simulation could collapse in the next second. I could awake from this dream.
thomastjeffery 5mo ago
Only if we abandon reason while simultaneously claiming objectivity. I cannot know objectively whether I am in a simulation or not. I can, however, reason about my experience, the experiences of others (as I perceive them), and the systems that facilitate perception. All of that information is logically coherent, so I can "know" it. My knowledge may not be objectively proven, but it is the most subjectively relevant conclusion.
jatora 5mo ago
[dead]
arcastroe 5mo ago
> Is there only one consciousness in the universe, or multiple? This sounds similar to the "how do you know you're not dreaming?" question. When you are in a dream, you really are the only single conciousness of that world. Any other person you interact with inside your dream is not performing any thinking of their own. Instead, dream interactions are just your single consciousness interacting with itself. I think it is obvious there are multiple consciousness in the universe and not just one. Unless you're in a dream right now ;)

by prmph 5mo ago

kaashif 5mo ago

Why does whether we're in a simulation or not matter for whether anything is explorable? You can explore how the simulation works, there's just some other layer you can't explore. Or maybe you can somehow. When you look at the stars, are they real or a simulation in your brain? Does that mean you can't explore them?

LoganDark 5mo ago
> When you look at the stars, are they real or a simulation in your brain? This is unknowable.
- smackeyacky 5mo ago
  It is knowable isn’t it? We know our brains play a variety of tricks to get a cohesive view out of two wildly complicated but deeply flawed meat sensors. That fits the definition of a simulation.
  - LoganDark 5mo ago
    What's unknowable is whether or not there are real stars that correspond with what you seem to observe; not whether or not your observations themselves are the real stars.
    - smackeyacky 5mo ago
      Didn’t we already work out they are similar in their spectral output to the Sun, enough to conclude they are the same kind of thing? And observing their movements makes them far away. Do each of us have to do the experiments again to validate that we know what they are?
      - nemomarx 5mo ago
        Something could only appear to be similar to the Sun. We have to trust in observation at some level for all of those experiments to be valid, basically, which means first believing that you're conscious and second believing that you can experience reality and so on from there. You can never really disprove that some malicious entity is just making you think you're seeing the stars and talking to people, if you want to go back to philosophy about it. There's a bit of assumed faith
        pixl97 5mo ago
        [dead]
  - zchrykng 5mo ago
    Part of the argument is that you can only know what you experience. But, if this is a simulation, "you" could be a program running on a computer and your every experience is just piped directly into your consciousness without any underlying physical reality. You might even not be interacting with other people in the simulation, it could be just you and everything else is simulated without being similar to whatever existence you have. I don't agree with this argument, but it circulates occasionally.

mjburgess 5mo ago

> Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. These statements conflate, as idealists do, epistemology and ontology. What we know "for sure" has no bearing on what's real. These are entirely separate questions. What an ape might, or might not, feel certain (or any which way about) says nothing about where an ape finds itself. Of course, this is a great injury to our ego, and sense of power to determine the nature of the world by our mind alone -- but such is life. The world is not human, not at all like a human, and nothing about it follows from us at all. The world is not made in our image. Consciousness is a derivative, secondary phenomenon which is a measurement process occurring in the body of an ape, and whatever it manages to measure with any clarity, has no impact on the nature of that world.

qsera 5mo ago
>Consciousness is a derivative, secondary phenomenon which is a measurement process occurring in the body of an ape Can you define existence without depending on or referring to consciousness?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- mjburgess 5mo ago
  Yes. Though i think you're committing the gentic fallacy here, which is the core fallacy at the heart of idealism and much 19th C. german philosophy. The properties of the origin of somethign imply nothing about the properties of the product. That a bread factory is made of metal, does not mean bread is. That in my statement of things in language I am conscious of what I state, says nothing about the truth (or other such properties) of what I say. A photographic plate is made of metal, the mountain it photographs, of mud. I am conscious, but when I say, "reality is all that which is extended in space and time" -- the truth of that proposition has nothing to do with my being consiouss -- it is a loaf of bread, a photograph, a product of a process invovling consiousness but in none of its properties, depends upon it. Every relevant thing we do requires consciousness -- just as everythign a thermometer does requires, say, its own mercury -- but in measuring coffee's temperature, coffee is in no way mercury. And when we measre the world, by photographing it with consciousness, it is in no way conscious.

Xcelerate 5mo ago

> Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. > I know for sure what I am perceiving This reflects my view. And I’ve always found it mildly amusing that beings I cannot prove to myself are perceiving attempt to convince me that I’m not perceiving, when that’s exactly what I’m maximally sure of. Imagine arguing with an LLM designed to convince you that you’re not real. It would be weird, wouldn’t it?

pixl97 5mo ago
> It would be weird, wouldn’t it? That depends how it tried and what influences the LLM had on the outside world. For example if the LLM could drug you, either by convincing you to take drugs, or trick you into doing it, then convincing you that you're not real becomes monumentally easy. Derealization can be a monumentally profound/terrifying experience to your psyche.

vidarh 5mo ago

> you cannot prove that we are not in a simulation, and in a sense it does not matter I'd consider myself a materialist (in the philosophical sense) and this is why (and I agree with the rest of your comment to) We can not know, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary (e.g. someone metaphorically popping their head in from "outside" and revealing another layer to us), while it is important to understand that we do not know, it is more productive to assume in the absence of evidence, whether it is "real" or subjective or a simulation. As long as it appears to us to follow consistent rules, we can explore those rules, and explore our apparent material reality.

visarga 5mo ago

> Consciousness the the fundamental reality; it is the only thing we know for sure. Who invented the words "consciousness" "reality" "fundamental" that you are now using? you are using language invented elsewhere while claiming you can't be sure of its reality. Are you also claiming you can't be sure someone had to create and raise you to get to the point of asking such questions? We are downstream from parents and society. The whole discussion here is anchored on individual level, but we are not viable outside society. It's like extracting one cell from one organ and saying it is mysterious why it is like that, while ignoring the organism and the evolution. If society fails, human die too. If a human makes a fatal mistake, the cells in their body die too. We depend on top level doing its job to keep the lower layers viable.

prmph 5mo ago
> You are using language invented elsewhere while claiming you can't be sure of its reality. Your senses are the only thing on which this statement rests. Your don't know anything like "language", "invented" etc. All you know is what your mind and your senses tell you. And, yes, engaging with you on this topic, and my argument, is also included in what I refer to as my perception. I have no way to prove that you are even conscious, or that anything like language or invention actually are real, whatever real means.
- aerodexis 5mo ago
  So it's through the senses that one attains mathematical knowledge?
  - nothinkjustai 5mo ago
    Is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha?
anon-3988 5mo ago
> Are you also claiming you can't be sure someone had to create and raise you to get to the point of asking such questions? We are downstream from parents and society. Yes exactly. You are sure of nothing except the fact this now exists. The simulation could collapse in the next second. I could awake from this dream.

thomastjeffery 5mo ago

Only if we abandon reason while simultaneously claiming objectivity. I cannot know objectively whether I am in a simulation or not. I can, however, reason about my experience, the experiences of others (as I perceive them), and the systems that facilitate perception. All of that information is logically coherent, so I can "know" it. My knowledge may not be objectively proven, but it is the most subjectively relevant conclusion.

jatora 5mo ago

[dead]

arcastroe 5mo ago

> Is there only one consciousness in the universe, or multiple? This sounds similar to the "how do you know you're not dreaming?" question. When you are in a dream, you really are the only single conciousness of that world. Any other person you interact with inside your dream is not performing any thinking of their own. Instead, dream interactions are just your single consciousness interacting with itself. I think it is obvious there are multiple consciousness in the universe and not just one. Unless you're in a dream right now ;)