for those of the philosophical persuasion,
for those with a nagging existential limp...

Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High

I use this in a course that I teach.. and tonight for some reason, it is bothering me more than usual..I think the tragedy of it may be that perhaps in some objective sense I suppose we would be less real, but phenomenologically speaking there is no difference- or at least no difference we could perceive.

meh. best to ignore me.

I should go post this on a blog that no one would read instead.

I'm too worried trying to learn how to fuck you in a lawsuit for money one day to consider this right now.

i really wanted to read that until i saw that it was made up of so many words

I too have used this article in my high school philosophy classes. Its a fun slap upside the head.

If this in any way affords me the opportunity to make out with Monica Bellucci then my only question is, "What Uni-Ball model should I use to sign up?"

Oh, and hi Paul. Good to have you back.

I'm bidding farewell to The Mitten and moving to Austin in about three weeks.

i'm too drunk to read this right now.

Two common responses from my students as well.

The gist of the article is this: if you accept some premises that are generally accepted by some if not most academics working in the relevant areas, and reject as implausible some further propositions (or at least reject them probabilistically) then the logical conclusion is that you are probably living on a computer somewhere (i.e. "a simulated mind").

combine this with a conversation about the Drake equation and parallel universes and you are bound to cause anxiety attacks.

Anyhow I like using it as jeff said ' as a slap in the face'; generally a 'you don't know shit about reality' type of conversation.. which then transitions into a conversation concerning how we only have indirect contact with the physical world through our sensory systems. And to the degree that our sensory systems do not realistically represent true objective reality, then our reality is 'not true'.

Most days I accept it in my best Kantian stride... last night I could not- and today I'm not so sure.

I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused....

heavy shit. Well, regardless of whether we are biological or part of a simulated mind, there isn't much we can do except try to enjoy our perceived reality, right?

Could this also be an argument for a "god" or what we would perceive to be god? After all, what would really be the difference between the idea of a god or living on a simulated mind?

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said something about any technology advanced enough will appear to look like magic? I think it was him and i think it was from "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", but it might have been Heinlein in "Stranger in a Strange Land". Actually it might have been Heinlein quoting Twain through one of his characters.

Regardless, nicely placed elvis costello quote.

It was actually Arthur C Clark - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Also, sure the 'simulators' could be conceived of as 'god'- in the sense of the Creator(s).

Is there any functional difference you ask. Well- he goes on to say, that there could be- *if* you could guess the intentions of the Creator(s) and assuming they had one- and assuming you guessed correctly, then perhaps you would be 'rewarded' with either being carried over.continuation on another simulation or even 'uploaded' into their reality and given an artificial body.

...as long as you maintain a Cartesian distinction between mind and body (or in current cognitive science- the 'hardware' and 'software')- and argue that it is only the software that matters-

I use the Arthur C Clark quote on the syllabus

As a slight neo-mysterian, I'm one who's not so sure that Chalmer's "Type II Consciousness" can ever be implemented computationally.

Hadn't read that before. Very cool. Thanks for sharing, Paul. Still worling on the "upload" from the simulated

One thing the article doesn't address is the nesting possiblity. Even if I'm simulated and am privileged enough to get uploaded into the simulator's reality, what evidence would there be to prove that reality isn't also a simulation? It's turtles all the way up.

I agree with you - and I dont think you necessarily have to be 'neo-mysterian' to come to that conclusion- all you need to grant is that at least one type of consciousness (awareness of being aware) is embodied - that is, there is no Cartesian separation between mind and body... I think evolution bitch slaps us for thinking that one evolves functionally separate from the other.

This is the sort of conversation that got me through honors classes the first half of college without actually turning in any term papers or reading any assignments.

But just the first half.

the answer is .. there is no way to know. That is, even the Creators who created us could be nothing other than simulated minds on the computers of another set of Creators.. as you say- it can all be nested and who knows whats at the end.. or on which level of the nested framework we reside.

Ok, off to class

I think I know who this is, but with the name change I cant be sure. But thanks for the welcome.