Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:54:40 UTC No. 16589922

>>16589912
Descartes and Elon assume a distinction between subject and object that necessitates representation of the thing-itself. Eastern religions solve the distinction between subject and object with enlightenment. Since enlightenment is unfalsifiable by others because consciousness is not an observable object anyway the problem can't be considered solved by NPC's.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:12:04 UTC No. 16589931

>>16589912
>>16589922
What do your schizophrenic ramblings have to do with science? Perhaps >>>/x/ is a better fit for you.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:06:39 UTC No. 16589956

>>16589912
>How come this problem has never been solved?
Descartes solved this problem for himself but he can't solve it for Luciferian technocrats who actually do get all of their ideas about reality from demons.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:39:55 UTC No. 16589963

>>16589931
Solve the problem then.
Most people just walk away saying it doesn't matter whether we're in reality or a simulation,

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:42:01 UTC No. 16589966

>>16589956
>I think therefore I am
He only confirmed his own existence.
It's like being at a spelling bee and saying the answer to a math problem.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:44:23 UTC No. 16589967

>>16589963
Solve what problem? Your schizophrenia?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:49:13 UTC No. 16589970

>>16589967
Anon. You know what I'm talking about. Eventually all this tech be able to create a virtual little world.
How do you know we aren't already in one?
Or are you going to say VR is bullshit and AI isn't a real goal either?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:50:19 UTC No. 16589972

>>16589966
It's evident that you're completely ignorant of what I'm talking about.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:51:15 UTC No. 16589973

>>16589972
If I veer off into talking about demons this thread might actually get deleted.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:54:07 UTC No. 16589979

>>16589973
No, I mean with regard to Descartes' resolution of this whole debacle. Why start discussions about a subject you're oblivious about?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:58:57 UTC No. 16589986

>>16589979
I'm wondering if you actually know the problem. He ended up doubting the existence of everything else could be perceptually real but eventually concluded that he himself was real without a doubt.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:02:10 UTC No. 16589991

>>16589986
He also eventually concluded that everything else was real, too. Your posts demonstrate once again that most people are biological LLMs. You don't know what you're talking about -- a completely trivial observation since you have never actually read Descartes -- yet you are incapable of noticing this fact and reflecting on it even when your knowledge deficit is pointed out. Fascinating stuff.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:03:27 UTC No. 16589993

>>16589991
>eventually concluded that everything else was real
Prove it. The woowoo handwaving with god doesn't convince me or most people who don't believe in that.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:06:38 UTC No. 16589997

>>16589993
It's nice to see that you asked the chatbot. You learned something new today.
>doesn't convince me
Doesn't matter. The point is that he solved the problem to his own satisfaction so invoking him here as a precursor to tecchie insanity is invalid.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:08:31 UTC No. 16589998

>>16589997
>It's real because god said so
Ok, thanks bible thumper. The problem still exists.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:10:42 UTC No. 16590002

>>16589998
Whom are you quoting? Are the "bible thumpers" in the room with us? Are you off your meds again? Either way, my point still stands: Descartes has nothing to do with any of this. The motivation for Simulationism is completely different behind Descartes' motivations for questioning reality, and the relationship tecchies have with their Simulationism schizophrenia is completely different from the relationship of Descartes' philosophy with his skeptic starting point.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:13:03 UTC No. 16590005

>>16590002
The nature of his question is the same as what elon is proposing. Calling it a dream of satan or a simulation of technology doesn't matter.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:14:28 UTC No. 16590006

>>16590005
Elon isn't proposing anything, Elon is regurgitating a dumbed-down version of a theory proposed by Nick Bostrom that has nothing to do with epistemological skepticism and everything to do with sci-fi cult mysticism.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:15:48 UTC No. 16590007

>>16589970
So you want me to solve your schizophrenia. I suggest taking antipsychotics.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:17:58 UTC No. 16590009

>>16590006
>sci-fi cult mysticism
How can you not see where we are headed?
>>16590007
First they call him crazy, then they watch in awe as he makes the impossible possible.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:20:22 UTC No. 16590011

>>16590009
>How can you not see where we are headed?
I can see exactly where we are headed: we are headed into a world where the average normie is a mentally ill cult member brainwashed by a faux mysticist tecchie priest class.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:34:13 UTC No. 16590022

>>16590011
So far you haven't defined a problem and you haven't provided any arguments for any claim. Why do you deserve attention?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:42:51 UTC No. 16590026

>>16590022
>So far you haven't defined a problem
The problem is that you tried to involve Descartes in this discussion to give the Zionist brainlet you worship and his schizo simulation fantasy some credibility.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:50:47 UTC No. 16590029

>>16590026
Still no argument for why the Zionist brainlet and his schizo simulation fantasy are not credible.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:00:01 UTC No. 16590033

>>16590009
>he makes the impossible possible.
His wealth made it possible, not him, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but people need to remind themselves the he is still a SILLY GUY with aspergers.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:01:43 UTC No. 16590035

>>16590029
He's not credible because he's done nothing to establish his credibility or to support his retarded simulation fantasy. You basically conceded that he's not credible yourself, by trying (falsely) to use Descartes as backup.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:04:18 UTC No. 16590036

>>16590035
>he's done nothing to establish his credibility
Neither have you.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:06:05 UTC No. 16590038

>>16590036
Neither have I what? You sound legit schizophrenic. What is even the point of this thread? Since we've eliminated Descartes from this discussion, what's left? "Elon said a thing"? Ok, who cares?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:07:42 UTC No. 16590039

>>16589912
Descartes: midwit
Elon: also midwit

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:42:55 UTC No. 16590066

>>16589912
>computers keep advancing
Ok.
>eventually will simulate reality
This doesn't follow.
>implies we are in a simulation
Ignoring the previous fault, this also doesn't follow. No wonder this guy is so obsessed with brain implants.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:00:19 UTC No. 16590081

>>16590066
>This doesn't follow.
We've been simulating reality in various ways since the dawn of language. So far simulations have not been so immersive that we have lost the ability to discern between simulation and not-simulation. When we do lose the ability to discern between simulation and not-simulation the game starts again. So if complete immersion is possible it can not be proven and if complete immersion is not (yet) possible it also can't be proven.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:04:41 UTC No. 16590084

>>16590081
No matter how you spin it, the fact of the matter is that "computers are getting better" doesn't entail "we will be able to simulate reality".

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:06:20 UTC No. 16590087

>>16589912
>simulate reality
nah

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:09:51 UTC No. 16590089

>>16590084
>"computers are getting better" doesn't entail "we will be able to simulate reality"
NTA and you are right, but we don't actually have to "simulate reality", only make a simulation that's hard to distinguish from reality

if you put a VR googles on a newborn and feed him some psychedelics regularly will he be able to discern what's real?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:11:38 UTC No. 16590091

>>16590089
>we don't actually have to "simulate reality"
No, we actually have to simulate reality, by definition -- or at least what we take to be reality -- otherwise there is no basis for the argument.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:13:42 UTC No. 16590094

>>16590091
>at least what we take to be reality
computers were doing it decades ago

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:16:46 UTC No. 16590098

>>16590094
Show me the computers that reproduce what we take to be reality.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:16:52 UTC No. 16590099

>>16590091
you'd still react with your base reality body. how do you react "in simulation" without actually reacting in reality? moving your body etc.
this needs the brain in the vat thing. which is dumb. I wouldn't give up autonomy like that. my brain gotta be in some mecha able to move around. liek it is atm.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:18:38 UTC No. 16590102

>>16590098

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:19:15 UTC No. 16590104

>>16590099
I don't know what your incoherent reddit babble is about. I'm just pointing out that the argument is literally: "if what we observe is possible to simulate, then what we observe will be simulated, then what we observe almost certainly is simulated" -- all of this is based on the assumption of a simulation faithful to what we observe.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:20:28 UTC No. 16590106

>>16590104
Or rather, there is no "if" -- we're just supposed to assume that what we observe IS possible to simulate and WILL be simulated.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:22:48 UTC No. 16590107

>>16590104
>all of this is based on the assumption of a simulation faithful to what we observe
why do you insist it needs to be faithful? what do you mean by that?
it only needs to be good enough to trick a brain into believing in it

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:24:44 UTC No. 16590109

>>16590104
oh god you're so fucking retarded

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:27:39 UTC No. 16590111

>>16590107
>why do you insist it needs to be faithful?
I don't insist on anything. It is the premise of the Simulation Argument. That's how that argument goes. Without that, it simply degenerates into a "well, maybe some beings living in a different reality simulated us" dudeweedlmao thought experiment.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:30:39 UTC No. 16590112

>>16590107
simulation argument is retarded because it implies consciousness CAN be simulated in digital bits, which hasn't been proven. for all we know we're at max one level deep and we're processing in base reality hardware but faked sensory inputs. which is different

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:42:43 UTC No. 16590119

>>16590112
>for all we know
No one cares about "for all we know"-type propositions. They're a dime a dozen and none of them have any implications.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:46:15 UTC No. 16590121

>>16590112
I agree that simulation hypothesis is more about simulating consciousness than anything

>>16590111
>dudeweedlmao thought experiment
that's pretty much what all philosophy is

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:46:54 UTC No. 16590122

>>16590119
my point is that simulation argument is pretty fucking retarded.
there's also the efficiency difference, between running on native hardware or simulation. native hardware always wins on resource cost. you need to make a lot of assumptions for your shit simulation argument to make any fucking sense, and only in brainlet minds.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:57:48 UTC No. 16590129

>>16590122
>my point is that simulation argument is pretty fucking retarded.
It may or may not be retarded, depending on how you interpret it. If you do away with the assumptions, you end up with the following logically derivable observation: a reality that can be simulated almost certainly isn't real. Now, if you're sane, the most natural conclusion is that reality can't be simulated. If you're a tecchie zealot, the most natural conclusion is that reality probably isn't real. Either way, it's an interesting ontological a-priori result.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:59:23 UTC No. 16590132

>>16590121
>that's pretty much what all philosophy is
No, it's what brainlet "philosophy" for people on your level looks like.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:06:42 UTC No. 16590141

>>16590132
we have a separate name for the branch of philosophy that produces verifiable results, it's called science

everything else is loose thought experiments and ramblings about what could be, which is perfectly fine and I have no idea why it enrages you so much that you're falling that low on the pyramid

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:12:36 UTC No. 16590148

>>16590141
Worthwhile philosophical thought deals with the human condition. Useless philosophical wankery deals with baseless ontological what-ifs, especially ones that aren't rooted in any natural intuitions or reasonable a-prioris.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:21:02 UTC No. 16590152

>>16590148
>Worthwhile philosophical thought deals with the human condition
you mean like "life is absurd and stuff"?
what makes it more worthwhile than ontology or epistemology?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:28:53 UTC No. 16590160

>>16590152
>you mean like "life is absurd and stuff"?
I mean everything that sentence entails.

>what makes it more worthwhile than ontology or epistemology?
I didn't say it's more worthwhile than ontology or epistemology. I said it's more worthwhile than baseless ontological what-ifs.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:34:23 UTC No. 16590167

philosophy comes down to
>dudeweedlmao
>have you tried dmt?
>pour me another one
>hemlock isn't that bad

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:40:34 UTC No. 16590172

>>16590167
>i have a mental illness
Par for the course on /sci/.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:13:48 UTC No. 16590195

>>16590112
>He thinks he's in base reality.
>Calling others schizophrenic.
Anon, I...

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:14:47 UTC No. 16590197

>>16589912
Descarte's demon was just storyteller device for him to illustrate his epistemology that he formed from the ground up by finding the one thing he could not doubt to be true (that he is thinking) if such a demon existed and was tricking him. He didn't actually think there was a demon projecting some dream reality.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:17:21 UTC No. 16590198

>>16590197
>He didn't actually think there was a demon projecting some dream reality.
He thought it can't be ruled out without God.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:30:31 UTC No. 16590211

>>16590198
Lots of things can't be definitively ruled out, but that doesn't mean you should believe in them. But if this problem of perception and uncertainty in indirect realism bothers you (which I think it should) then you can become some sort of naive realist about perception or become an idealist.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:31:46 UTC No. 16590213

>>16590197
>S-surely d-demons a-are just m-metaphorical r-right g-g-g-guys? Ha...haha...
I love how almost the entire global population is now struggling to escape from the truth that is becoming more obvious by the day while gobbling up anti-depressants and stimulants like candy and saying "why so serious bro if you're depressed then just not be depressed!".

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:36:03 UTC No. 16590218

>>16590211
>Lots of things can't be definitively ruled out, but that doesn't mean you should believe in them
Ok, but the point is that you have a problem if you can't rule stuff like that out. It implies that something is missing from your concept of reality. Nowadays this is taken for granted because people are philosophically retarded, but back in his day this was considered to be an issue.

>you can become some sort of naive realist about perception or become an idealist
Neither option solves the problem.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:44:42 UTC No. 16590227

>>16590218
What problem in particular? That we just can't know 100% that we're not being simulated? Or just how can we know that what we perceive is really there?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:47:44 UTC No. 16590228

>>16590227
The problem Descartes brought up.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:48:29 UTC No. 16590230

>>16589912
>computers keep advancing and eventually will simulate reality, implies we are in a simulation
This is an assumption and a complete non-sequitur

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:17:47 UTC No. 16590630

>>16589970
I guess nobody knows for a 100% fact. Theoretically or hypothetically it could be layers of simulations all the way down, sort of like the infinite turtles. So what? There are infinite number of things or theories which you can't prove true or false.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:47:42 UTC No. 16590665

>>16590195
I didn't say I think we are, I said if consciousness can't be simulated on digital bits then we are at max in base reality with faked sensory inputs. it's not even a full level deep, it's a pseudo simulation.
and even faking sensory data, is expensive as fuck. it's literally free in base reality.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:49:25 UTC No. 16590668

>>16590665
>it's literally free in base reality.
as in base reality sensory data is free for a base reality brain.