O.K., aside from the rather schizoid posting, I clicked on the link and actually read some of this stuff. Why? Because it's 1:40 a.m. and I can't read any more real science without it leaking out of my ears. So, at the end of the article, filled with leaky logic and propositions that would get an undergraduate philosophy student in trouble, I get to this:
Another event that would let us conclude with a very high degree of confidence that we are in a simulation is if we ever reach the point where we are about to switch on our own simulations. If we start running simulations, that would be very strong evidence against (1) and (2). That would leave us with only (3).
and I have to wonder.....this guy is a postdoctoral fellow at Oxford? Jeez, what are they paying these guys for? Pop culture derivative drivel about a movie whose sequel sucked? [slashdot.org]. This is like high school philosophy where you would sit around drinking beer in someones mom's basement saying "so, dude, how do we know if we are really here?" Please. I'm all for arts and liberal education, but let's work at thinking about things that can make a difference.
He does state on his that the proposition entitled "The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You are Living in the Matrix is Quite High." which is the article that Slashdot links to is in his words a "Brief, popular synopsis. But read the original paper instead if you can."
The ORIGINAL proposition is here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulati on.html
The sad thing is that a lot of what passes for modern 'philosophy' is the same drivel being spouted by this guy, only 'cleaned up' in a tautological fashion so that said drivel is impossible to disprove. Also impossible to prove in any meaningful sense, but modern philosophy doesn't recognize empiricism as a valid approach (and in fact tries to deny it by placing much of its supposition in the fantasy realm of the 'metaphysical').
What I find interesting is that people actually get *paid* to indulge in thi
Um.. I went to school for Philosophy, and quit because I COULDN'T get payed. The only jobs with a solid philosophy background is writing. Oh.. and... er... ethics.
...and this is different from philosophy of the past how? Seriously, philosophy has always been at least 95% self-masturbatory bullshit. Nothing's changed.
In one of the other articles hosted on the site, How to Live in a Simulation [jetpress.org], there's more poorly thought out circular logic...
Obviously we cannot now be sure that we are not living in a simulation. The more likely our descendants are to be rich, long-lasting, and interested in simulating us, the more simulations of people like us we should expect there to be on average, relative to real people like us. And so the more we expect our descendants to be rich like this, the more we should expect that we are
but modern philosophy doesn't recognize empiricism as a valid approach (and in fact tries to deny it by placing much of its supposition in the fantasy realm of the 'metaphysical').
No shit sherlock. That's rather like saying "Modern carpenters don't recognise making stuff out of plastic as a valid approach". We all know that lots of stuff is stronger, cheaper and lighter if made out of plastic rather than wood, but that doesn't mean all carpenters are losers because they insist on using wood.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by modern 'philosophy' but I think you have some misconceptions:
"Modern Philosophy" is a movement in the literature that reflects a more mathematical and scientific approach to the philosophical ideas originating back in ancient Greece. Philosophers usually credit Rene Descartes for the transition, but Descartes is a bad example of good philosophy because his arguments go in logical circles. David Hume is a little better because did take an empirical approach to philoso
The sad thing is that a lot of what passes for modern 'biology' is so ridiculously practical as to ignore basic questions like why making a drug to save someone's life is worthwhile - what's so innately valuable about life? Modern biology is entirely unconcerned about ethical questions, relying on the unproven, unargued, and unacknowledged a priori assumption that knowledge about life is good.
What I find interesting is that people actually get *paid* to indulge int his masturbatory nonsense. Talk about an
uuuum, sounds to me like you are making fun of what you don't understand. If you understand it, it's pretty deep and something worth thinking about, considering its pretty clean logic surrounding the nature of reality.
Once you realize you are not conscious, you become conscious. Stop talking and think, you fucking automatons.
Jeez, what are they paying these guys for? Pop culture derivative drivel about a movie whose sequel sucked?. This is like high school philosophy where you would sit around drinking beer in someones mom's basement saying "so, dude, how do we know if we are really here?"
And you asked that question because...it might have been fun? Aren't these people entitled to a little fun too?
Please. I'm all for arts and liberal education, but let's work at thinking about things that can make a difference.
And you asked that question because...it might have been fun?
No, I think the point is that he asked that question because he was very intoxicated at the time.
I was reading through these posts to see if someone else had slapped him down for his unrigorous logic. I'm glad to see not everyone else bought into his philosophy. It's not even interesting food for thought, like the matrix was.
I strongly disagree with any argument about what reality is when its based upon probablisitic calculations (esp. his, cos he hasn't made any!)
Very quickly: His argument at its heart is based upon Brandon Carters' Doomsday Theory (independantly thought of by Richard Gott). John Le
Where's the leaky logic? Granted, he's not much for specifics, but even without Moore's Law-type shenanigans his argument about future processing power seems reasonable.
More important, people get paid lotsa green for thinking up created-world scenarios and trying to determine what is the best course of action to pursue, then propounding that course. We call it religion; this gent calls it philosophy.
What the......? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another event that would let us conclude with a very high degree of confidence that we are in a simulation is if we ever reach the point where we are about to switch on our own simulations. If we start running simulations, that would be very strong evidence against (1) and (2). That would leave us with only (3).
and I have to wonder.....this guy is a postdoctoral fellow at Oxford? Jeez, what are they paying these guys for? Pop culture derivative drivel about a movie whose sequel sucked? [slashdot.org]. This is like high school philosophy where you would sit around drinking beer in someones mom's basement saying "so, dude, how do we know if we are really here?" Please. I'm all for arts and liberal education, but let's work at thinking about things that can make a difference.
Re:What the......? (Score:2, Informative)
The ORIGINAL proposition is here:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulat
Re:What the......? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I find interesting is that people actually get *paid* to indulge in thi
Re:What the......? (Score:1)
Re:What the......? (Score:2)
Re:What the......? (Score:2)
Re:What the......? (Score:1)
OMFG you can get paid!?!?! WHERE?
O/T: Your Sig (Score:2)
*debug mode*
a is a floating point value set to NaN?
Re:What the......? (Score:2)
No shit sherlock. That's rather like saying "Modern carpenters don't recognise making stuff out of plastic as a valid approach". We all know that lots of stuff is stronger, cheaper and lighter if made out of plastic rather than wood, but that doesn't mean all carpenters are losers because they insist on using wood.
It is not
defining your terms (Score:2, Insightful)
"Modern Philosophy" is a movement in the literature that reflects a more mathematical and scientific approach to the philosophical ideas originating back in ancient Greece. Philosophers usually credit Rene Descartes for the transition, but Descartes is a bad example of good philosophy because his arguments go in logical circles. David Hume is a little better because did take an empirical approach to philoso
Re:What the......? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I find interesting is that people actually get *paid* to indulge int his masturbatory nonsense. Talk about an
Re:What the......? (Score:2)
No wait--This is modern philosophy. This came from a peer-reviewed journal! And reading it is the most stimulation I've received all day.
I think it's a much bigger crime people get paid to write moronic movies like Matrix Reloaded, without having any idea about anything philosophical.
Worse still is that modern industrialized societies allow uneducated fools like you near a computer. We should do
Re:What the......? (Score:1)
Once you realize you are not conscious, you become conscious. Stop talking and think, you fucking automatons.
Re:What the......? (Score:3, Insightful)
And you asked that question because...it might have been fun? Aren't these people entitled to a little fun too?
Please. I'm all for arts and liberal education, but let's work at thinking about things that can make a difference.
IME, the h
Re:What the......? (Score:2)
And you asked that question because...it might have been fun? No, I think the point is that he asked that question because he was very intoxicated at the time.
Re:You are dead right (Score:1)
I strongly disagree with any argument about what reality is when its based upon probablisitic calculations (esp. his, cos he hasn't made any!)
Very quickly: His argument at its heart is based upon Brandon Carters' Doomsday Theory (independantly thought of by Richard Gott). John Le
Re:What the......? (Score:2)
More important, people get paid lotsa green for thinking up created-world scenarios and trying to determine what is the best course of action to pursue, then propounding that course. We call it religion; this gent calls it philosophy.
Re:What the......? (Score:2)
Remember, no one can use a PhD as a weapon. You cannot be hit by a PhD or harmed by it in any way.