You are a simulation

[boomerang]

There are no testable hypotheses here and Smoot's central theme is speculative. But his logic is disturbingly sound.

 

[Randall]

There are no testable hypotheses here and Smoot's central theme is speculative. But his logic is disturbingly sound ...

I love the Ted Talks. In this case, where his logic falls apart is where he assumes that if the brain can be mapped all the way down to individual neurons that such a map can then be used to download someone's consciousness into a supercomputer. There is a leap in logic there. To use an analogy, virtual magnets do not produce real magnetism. Similarly a virtual brain may not produce real consciousness. Only after we figure out what consciousness is and can come up with the algorithms for it can we hope to attain virtual consciousness in supercomputers.

 

[stonehart]

Damn that makes you think

 

[Soupie]

I love the Ted Talks. In this case, where his logic falls apart is where he assumes that if the brain can be mapped all the way down to individual neurons that such a map can then be used to download someone's consciousness into a supercomputer. There is a leap in logic there. To use an analogy, virtual magnets do not produce real magnetism. Similarly a virtual brain may not produce real consciousness. Only after we figure out what consciousness is and can come up with the algorithms for it can we hope to attain virtual consciousness in supercomputers.

Why don't virtual magnets produce "real" magnetism? What is magnetism?

I would argue that magnets don't produce magnetism either, real or otherwise. I think magnetism is a phenomena that can theoretically be created with objects that are not magnets, but behave like magnets in the proper medium.

Therefore, if all the necessary values could be recreated in a simulation, then yes, "magnetism" could be simulated. It would even be real magnetism in the sense that the phenomena would be recreated, but it would not be "real" in the sense that physical magnets could interact with virtual magnets.

The bottom line is that "magnetism" and just about any other physical process/phenomenon may be substrate independent.

You say we cannot determine if consciousness can be simulated until we determine what it is. I agree. However, IMHO there seems to be a consensus that whatever consciousness is, it is not a physical substance.

That leaves us with some options, two of which are:

(1) Consciousness is a nonphysical, supernatural substance,

(2) Consciousness is information embodied by physical, organic systems (organisms).

It may be that consciousness is indeed information embodied by organisms, but it may be that such systems cannot be reduced to a set of algorithms that can run on a static CPU.

 

[boomerang]

Below are thought provoking statements about consciousness from "The Brain And The Inner World", by Solms and Turnbull. It is not the definitive work on the subject (what could be?) , but does a superb job of attempting to explain the almost ineffable interface between mind and matter as exhibited by inner subjective emotional and cognitive states as related to observed, real time physiological processes.

"...cognitive science is no different from any other branch of science. Physics.....is about abstractions like 'gravity', 'electricity', 'weak forces' and the like. These things too cannot be seen, but they are what physics is about."

-"The mind is an apparatus of nature like any other, and the 'mental apparatus' is the abstraction that lies behind it...."

-"But the mental apparatus has one unique attribute that distinguishes it from other parts of nature: It is the part of nature that we ourselves occupy. It is us."

The upshot is that self-awareness is as much a property of nature as electromagnetism or gravity. There is nothing verifiable in nature, of which we know, that can be cited to rule our universe as a simulation either in or out.

This subject has been discussed in excruciatingly exquisite detail on other threads here. But it continues to fascinate us for obvious reasons.

 

[Randall]

Why don't virtual magnets produce "real" magnetism? What is magnetism?

I would argue that magnets don't produce magnetism either, real or otherwise. I think magnetism is a phenomena that can theoretically be created with objects that are not magnets, but behave like magnets in the proper medium ...

That makes no sense to me and doesn't seem to address the point. But perhaps if we elaborate:

Real-world magnets have a real-world fundamental property called magnetism. There's no weasel wording that gets around this. It's a fact. Just like it's a fact that virtual magnets cannot have real-world mass or real world magnetic fields, and if what I and others, including Chalmers suspect is correct; and consciousness is a similarly fundamental property of real-world existence, then there's no reason to believe that a virtual representation, no matter how detailed, will also have real-world consciousness. It may be the case that just like magnetism requires real-world materials and physical conditions, the same may be true for consciousness.

We don't have the answers yet to know one way or the other, but the substantial and verifiable evidence does appear to point in this direction. Basically, the day they can get a virtual magnet to attract a real-world paper clip to my screen using only virtual magnetism, will be the day I believe it's possible to create virtual consciousness that has the same properties of real-world experience as we do.

 

[mike]

I love the Ted Talks. In this case, where his logic falls apart is where he assumes that if the brain can be mapped all the way down to individual neurons that such a map can then be used to download someone's consciousness into a supercomputer. There is a leap in logic there. To use an analogy, virtual magnets do not produce real magnetism. Similarly a virtual brain may not produce real consciousness. Only after we figure out what consciousness is and can come up with the algorithms for it can we hope to attain virtual consciousness in supercomputers.

My view is the universe and everything in it is 100 percent mechanistic. That there are no supernatural mechanisms. And that includes our brains and conciousness. The nature of that mechanism as it pertains to conciousness may be subtle, but it remains mechanistic.

As such in my opinion it can be synthesized

 

[Randall]

My view is the universe and everything in it is 100 percent mechanistic. That there are no supernatural mechanisms. And that includes our brains and conciousness. The nature of that mechanism as it pertains to conciousness may be subtle, but it remains mechanistic.

As such in my opinion it can be synthesized

Perhaps, but certain conditions will likely need to be met apart from sheer processing power. Just like magnetism is dependent on a particular configuration of parts made of specific types of materials, consciousness also appears to be dependent on a particular configuration of parts made from specific materials, and the working mechanistic example is the human brain. Computers are constructed of very different materials in a very different configuration than our brain and therefore, no matter how good it looks, just like wrapping a plastic string around a wooden core will not yield magnetism, there's no reason to expect that metal and polycarbonate in a completely different configuration will yield consciousness.

 

[Soupie]

Real-world magnets have a real-world fundamental property called magnetism. There's no weasel wording that gets around this. It's a fact. Just like it's a fact that virtual magnets cannot have real-world mass or real world magnetic fields, and if what I and others, including Chalmers suspect is correct; and consciousness is a similarly fundamental property of real-world existence, then there's no reason to believe that a virtual representation, no matter how detailed, will also have real-world consciousness. It may be the case that just like magnetism requires real-world materials and physical conditions, the same may be true for consciousness.

Magnetism: (1) a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, resulting in attractive and repulsive forces between objects (google).

The question wasn't whether a "real-world" magnet could interact with a virtual magent, but whether magnetism (attracting and repulsing forces between objects) could be virtually simulated. I think that magnetism can certainly be simulated.

If you're having a hard time conceptualizing this, think of wave phenomena instead:

Wave: (4) a periodic disturbance of the particles of a substance that may be propagated without net movement of the particles, such as in the passage of undulating motion, heat, or sound (google).

A "real-world" wave is constituted of physical particles such as water molecules or sports fans. But can a wave be virtually simulated? Sure. Does this mean I can surf on virtual waves? No.

(As an aside, there are reasons to believe that magnetism is actually a phenomenon that can essentially be described/explained via fluid dynamics.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4611.pdf;
http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~ffp12/ftp/fullpapers/T.Kambe.pdf;
Fluidic Origins of the Magnetic and Electric Fields: A physical interpretation of B and E)

So, I'll grant that—since a fundamental understanding of consciousness eludes us, one can't be sure that it can be simulated; however, I reject the notion that magnetism cannot be simulated.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that magnetism and consciousness are equivalent, or even similar, phenomena.

 

[Randall]

Magnetism: (1) a physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, resulting in attractive and repulsive forces between objects (google).

The question wasn't whether a "real-world" magnet could interact with a virtual magent, but whether magnetism (attracting and repulsing forces between objects) could be virtually simulated. I think that magnetism can certainly be simulated.

You seem to still be missing my point because unless a virtual magnet can be made to interact with real-world magnetic material, the virtual world magnet has zero magnetism, and it makes no difference how convincing the picture of the virtual magnet might be, or how well it seems to interact with other pictures of other magnets. It's just pixels lighting up based on what we tell the little switches they should do. I'm not saying we can't call that a "simulation". I'm just saying there isn't actually any real magnetism in the simulation, and it may be the same situation with a simulated consciousness.

If you're having a hard time conceptualizing this ....

No problem with the idea that a brain can be scanned and simulated on a computer. The leap in logic I am speaking of with respect to the video ( above around 12:35 ) is in the suggestion that if a detailed enough scan of a brain were put into virtual operation in a computer, it would produce real consciousness ( "... and we would have that person's mind downloaded into a computer" ). I'll grant that here we might mince words over the interpretation of "mind" vs. "consciousness", but either way I don't see that in principle, it makes any difference. The words are often used synonymously. Mind ≠ brain.

 

[Soupie]

You seem to still be missing my point because unless a virtual magnet can be made to interact with real-world magnetic material, the virtual world magnet has zero magnetism, and it makes no difference how convincing the picture of the virtual magnet might be, or how well it seems to interact with other pictures of other magnets. It's just pixels lighting up based on what we tell the little switches they should do. I'm not saying we can't call that a "simulation". I'm just saying there isn't actually any real magnetism in the simulation, so it may very well be the same situation with a simulated consciousness.

I appreciate your point, but I reject it. The question was whether magnetism can be simulated, not whether simulated magnetism and real-world magnetism can interact.

You say: "There isn't any real magnetism in the simulation." You're stumbling over the concept of "real" here. We've already defined magnetism as the "attraction and repulsion of objects."

A simulation can be defined as:

"The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time (wikipedia)."

For example, take a wave moving through water. A model of a body of water can be created and set into motion, and if the "key characteristics" of the system have been captured correctly, waves should emerge from the model/simulation.

The waves will not be real-world waves, but they will be real waves.

Now, it's very true that we don't have conclusive models the phenomenon of magnetism. I say conclusive, because as illustrated in the papers linked above, there certainly are models. Since we don't have conclusive models of the physical mechanisms underlying magnetism, we currently use placeholder terms such as "force."

However, theoretically, the "key characteristics or behaviors/functions" magnets can be discovered and therefore modeled and simulated. Again, as noted above, hydrodynamic systems/processes can be used to rigorously model/simulate magnetism.



Of course, for hydrodynamic models of magnetism to truly explain magnetism, spacetime itself would have to be some sort of fluid... But is there any empirical evidence to suggest that spacetime is a fluid? Yes, thanks to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time:

Gravitational Waves Detected, Confirming Einstein’s Theory

"A team of scientists announced on Thursday that they had heard and recorded the sound of two black holes colliding a billion light-years away, a fleeting chirp that fulfilled the last prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago. (Listen to it here.) It completes his vision of a universe in which space and time are interwoven and dynamic, able to stretch, shrink and jiggle. ..."​

The full implications of the discovery/confirmation of gravity waves hasn't even begun to surface in mainstream science.

 

[Randall]

I appreciate your point, but I reject It ...

Logic isn't something that changes just because you choose to reject it. But the science bulletins in your links are still very interesting and the Times link is particularly good. The LIGO experiment isn't conclusive evidence of gravitational waves, at least not in the sense they're talking about ( as variations in spatial geometry ). It's about as conclusive as the WOW signal is for ETH communication, and even then there is still a major issue with the logic of the interpretation. A shift in the wavelength of light doesn't necessarily mean that space is fluid or curved. It may simply mean that gravitational variations cause light waves to behave in a manner that can be thought of in those particular abstract terms, and the reason why may have nothing to with space actually being curved or fluid.

For example, even if the signal distortion was caused by a gravitational variation rather than a seismic event ( the latter seeming far more likely ), all it means is that the gravitational variation interacted with the materials that the antenna is made of in a manner that caused them to behave in the manner described. There is insufficient reason to jump to the conclusion that spatial geometry itself was affected at all. However the scientists who have to justify spending billions on the project and whose livelihoods are dependent on it might have a different opinion. Billions of dollars and years of confirmation bias have a tendency to do that ... LOL

 

[Soupie]

Logic isn't something that changes just because you choose to reject it.

Haha. You've made essentially three claims in this thread, all of which I've either refuted or shown to be questionable or irrelevant:

(1) Magnetism cannot be simulated.

I've shown that magnetism may be a physical process that can certainly be simulated.

(2) Real-world magnetism and simulated magnetism cannot interact.

Irrelevant.

(3) Magnetism and consciousness are similar.

Consciousness (subjectivity) is unlike any physical processes known the man, including magnetism.

There is insufficient reason to jump to the conclusion that spatial geometry itself was affected at all.

Considering the global anticipation and subsequent global scientific coverage and attention this discovery received, not too mention that the waves were detected by two separate detectors, etc., etc., and with all due respect, I'm going to weight the analysis of the physics community over yours.

But of course, as with all empirical evidence, more will be needed. However, I expect Bohm's interpretation of QM to gain increasing mainstream attention.

 

[Randall]

Haha. You've made essentially three claims in this thread, all of which I've either refuted or shown to be questionable or irrelevant ...

OK so let's look at those:

(1) Magnetism cannot be simulated.

I never made that claim. My claim is that real world properties like magnetism cannot be downloaded into a simulation and that similarly, if consciousness ( or mind as the video states ) is also a fundamental property, then it cannot be downloaded either. I'll add here that even if a working simulation of a brain produces something that seems conscious, at best it would still only be scanned copy and would not be the original. Neither of these points are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the claim in the video that scanning a brain onto a computer will automatically result in a computer with a mind.

I've shown that magnetism may be a physical process that can certainly be simulated.

I never had any argument with that. Simulations of magnets and many other things exist.

(2) Real-world magnetism and simulated magnetism cannot interact.

Irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant to the point I was making, but it might be irrelevant to yours, whatever that is. I'm not sure. Maybe I'm missing something. What is your point again ... LOL ?

(3) Magnetism and consciousness are similar.

Consciousness (subjectivity) is unlike any physical processes known the man, including magnetism.

Perhaps a little more context there would help. The same point is made by Chalmers, ( the philosopher known for his extensive contemplation on this issue ) who also uses magnetism as an example of a fundamental property that consciousness may be like in the sense that it is something fundamental. I'm not claiming they are identical. But it seems they may be related somehow because EM does affect the mind. The video is posted several times in the forum but I can scratch it up for you again if you haven't seen it.

Considering the global anticipation and subsequent global scientific coverage and attention this discovery received, not too mention that the waves were detected by two separate detectors, etc., etc., and with all due respect, I'm going to weight the analysis of the physics community over yours.

The info I based my statement on comes from the same community, in fact from the scientific data itself where you'll notice that there are margins of error for false readings, and that combined with no other signals, and the comment that the blurp goes down in history along with other famous audio signals certainly alludes to WOW signal type blurps, not to mention that authority and credentials do not trump pure logic unless you're a politician or bureaucrat.

But of course, as with all empirical evidence, more will be needed. However, I expect Bohm's interpretation of QM to gain increasing mainstream attention.

Now stop messin' with me ... LOL

 

[Soupie]

The info I based my statement on comes from the same community, in fact from the scientific data itself where you'll notice that there are margins of error for false readings, and that combined with no other signals, and the comment that the blurp goes down in history along with other famous audio signals certainly alludes to WOW signal type blurps, not to mention that authority and credentials do not trump pure logic unless you're a politician or bureaucrat.

So you're skeptical that gravity waves have actually been detected? Besides the typical desire for additional evidence, I haven't sensed any skepticism in the community.

Now stop messin' with me ... LOL

If this regards Bohmian mechanics, no, I'm not messing with you.

Quantum weirdness may hide an orderly reality after all

 

[Randall]

So you're skeptical that gravity waves have actually been detected? Besides the typical desire for additional evidence, I haven't sensed any skepticism in the community.

If this regards Bohmian mechanics, no, I'm not messing with you.

Quantum weirdness may hide an orderly reality after all

You do post some interesting links. Here's a couple of others to consider:

- The Great ‘gravitational-waves’ hoax debunked
- Gravitational wave detection could be a false alarm
- Is the Gravitational-Wave Claim True? And Was It Worth the Cost?

I do however recognize the logic that the gravitational attraction of two orbiting masses on a third more distant mass could, under the right circumstances result in variations that could be interpreted as "waves" because of the subtle rise and fall in the strength of the attraction of the two orbiting masses on the third, the frequency of which would be equal to the orbital period of the two orbiting masses. This idea is however also different than gravitation as a wave that is like light, where the force of gravity is carried away by tiny gravity particles.