Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]

Author Topic: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof  (Read 4471 times)

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof
« Reply #105 on: September 22, 2015, 03:59:01 pm »

Positing as they do something of greater complexity than the entire universe and which we have absolutely no evidence of.

What evidence do you have that the universe is as it appears to be? Occam's razor?

Our universe appears to be an area of at least 10^31 cubic light years full of mostly nothing except for about 3 * 10^55 grams of stuff that we don't know what it is or why it exists. Most of which we can't see, for reasons we don't understand. And when we look very closely at this stuff, it appears to mostly be made out of nothing. But we think it's actually not "stuff," or rather, what we think of as "stuff" is actually fundamentally the same as "the ability to move stuff." Meanwhile, whatever this stuff is that seems to exist in stupidly large quantities, it appears to be impossible to create, and it appears to behave differently when we look at it, and apparently when you put it together in the right shapes, it acts intelligently.

What's your explanation for all this that's "simpler"  than solipsism?

"Consciousness exists" and "it's hallucinating" is much simpler and requires far fewer assumptions than any material explanation for the existence and behavior of the universe that I'm aware of.
The moral: do not go for simple explanations, go for ones that have predictive power. You can assume that every single movement of every single particle in the universe has been a result of random quantum fluctuations as a simple explanation for why they move that way, but it's obviously unusable for any practical purpose.
Logged
._.

Fenrir

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Monstrous Wolf
    • View Profile
Re: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof
« Reply #106 on: October 03, 2015, 03:33:42 am »

What's your explanation for all this that's "simpler"  than solipsism?

"Consciousness exists" and "it's hallucinating" is much simpler and requires far fewer assumptions than any material explanation for the existence and behavior of the universe that I'm aware of.
This isn’t true. A hallucination of a reality is necessarily more complicated than a reality. A brain that can simulate physics is more complicated than physics.
Logged

NJW2000

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CONSUMES_VERMIN]
    • View Profile
Re: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof
« Reply #107 on: October 03, 2015, 03:37:30 am »

Not this again.
Logged
I'm not around much anymore. I'll still check PMs though.

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof
« Reply #108 on: October 03, 2015, 08:04:29 am »

Oh my god Fenrir is back! Don't leave us again, buddy!
Logged

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof
« Reply #109 on: October 03, 2015, 04:43:33 pm »

What's your explanation for all this that's "simpler"  than solipsism?

"Consciousness exists" and "it's hallucinating" is much simpler and requires far fewer assumptions than any material explanation for the existence and behavior of the universe that I'm aware of.
This isn’t true. A hallucination of a reality is necessarily more complicated than a reality. A brain that can simulate physics is more complicated than physics.


What brain?

You mean the brain you're assuming you have based on an experience you think your brain is having? Do you see how that's a circular assumption? It's kind of like "the bible is the word of god, because the bible says so." You wouldn't depend on the information provided by the bible as a reliable source of validation for the information content of the bible. Why would you depend on the information provided by your brain as a reliable source of validation for the information content of your brain?

Let me re-quote myself:

"Consciousness exists" and "it's hallucinating" is much simpler and requires far fewer assumptions than any material explanation for the existence and behavior of the universe that I'm aware of.

That consciousness exists is empirically observable:

Are you having an experience? (y/n)

If the answer is yes, you can confirm that you are having an experience. That doesn't therefore imply that your experience is representative of an external reality or that your interpretation of that experience is valid. It doesn't imply what "you" are or what it is that is doing the experiencing. Material explanations for the universe cannot be logically deduced from observable experience. Positing a material universe require a whole bunch of assumptions. For example, that your experience is an accurate representation of the world, that there's even a "world" that you're experiencing, etc.


"Consciousness exists" and "it's hallucinating" is much simpler and requires far fewer assumptions than any material explanation for the existence and behavior of the universe that I'm aware of.
A hallucination of a reality is necessarily more complicated than a reality. A brain that can simulate physics is more complicated than physics.

Even if we assume a material universe, assume that brains do exist, etc, the brain would be a construct of physics operating within physics rules. Saying that the brain is "more complicated than" physics is kind of like saying a lego house is more complicated than legos. I'm not entirely sure what you even mean by that. My best guess is that you're proceeding from some sort of low to high level programming language analogy in the context of a language becoming complicated enough to write a compiler for itself. Which is not a good analogy for this situation.

Within the context of our particular observable universe, a (single brain's worth of  experience of a universe) clearly involves less complexity than (our entire universe for that brain to experience.) If nothing else, simply because of the scales involved. If you're simulating a brain, there's no need to simulate what's going on in those couple billion galaxies over there. There's no need to simulate what's going on around most of the ~100 billion stars in this galaxy. There isn't any need to simulate what's going on in the vast majority of space around this star.

There isn't even any reason to simulate what's going on 100 feet beyond your vision. All you need to simulate is what's being experienced.

For example, the data content of this post that is reaching you is much simpler than the complicated biological organism with trillions of cells that you assume to be writing it from a complicated computing device over a complicated internet, isn't it? The experience that you're having right now, isn't it far simpler than the complicated biological organism you posit yourself to be, capable of processing data from an external world and translating it into that experience?

Fenrir

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Monstrous Wolf
    • View Profile
Re: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof
« Reply #110 on: October 04, 2015, 03:06:13 pm »

That’s a good point. You said “consciousness”, not “brain”. I must have conflated that with the brain-in-a-jar scenario.
Logged

Strife26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On the acceptance of statements and the burden of proof
« Reply #111 on: October 04, 2015, 05:06:44 pm »

Oh my god Fenrir is back! Don't leave us again, buddy!

Is it bad that I saw the last poster note and said basically the same thing?
Logged
This post likely did not make me any happier, tougher, smarter, or richer. Probably not a good usage of limited time and effort.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]