Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[excreationist]

But this still does not answer the question: why does @excreationist think not just that we live in a simulation at a probability of one half, but why he is the only one conscious in it?

This is where the Roy game comes in. The player's consciousness exists in their brain outside of the video game. They use a helmet so that their consciousness connects to the simulation. The simulation isn't generating a separate consciousness that exists only in the game.

So you are being simulated by someone donning a helmet?

I think AI is running the simulation. I think it is handling the main character where its vision and hearing and other sensations are sent to the player who would be wearing a helmet in that scenario. The person wearing the helmet is having its outputs sent to the game like how it wants to move its muscles and what it wants to say. I don't think your words are exactly correct though. (I think AI is simulating me)

 

[pood]

But this still does not answer the question: why does @excreationist think not just that we live in a simulation at a probability of one half, but why he is the only one conscious in it?

This is where the Roy game comes in. The player's consciousness exists in their brain outside of the video game. They use a helmet so that their consciousness connects to the simulation. The simulation isn't generating a separate consciousness that exists only in the game.

So you are being simulated by someone donning a helmet?

I think AI is running the simulation. I think it is handling the main character where its vision and hearing and other sensations are sent to the player who would be wearing a helmet in that scenario. The person wearing the helmet is having its outputs sent to the game like how it wants to move its muscles and what it wants to say. I don't think your words are exactly correct though. (I think AI is simulating me)

Evidence?

Here is a much more parsimonious idea: You are a real person living in a real world, as am I and everyone else.

Does this idea bother you?

 

[pood]

And I ask again: why do you believe it is probable that you are the only conscious entity in the alleged simulaton?

Maybe you have answered this but I missed it, so please answer again or link the post where you answered the question.

 

[excreationist]

But this still does not answer the question: why does @excreationist think not just that we live in a simulation at a probability of one half, but why he is the only one conscious in it?

This is where the Roy game comes in. The player's consciousness exists in their brain outside of the video game. They use a helmet so that their consciousness connects to the simulation. The simulation isn't generating a separate consciousness that exists only in the game.

So you are being simulated by someone donning a helmet?

I think AI is running the simulation. I think it is handling the main character where its vision and hearing and other sensations are sent to the player who would be wearing a helmet in that scenario. The person wearing the helmet is having its outputs sent to the game like how it wants to move its muscles and what it wants to say. I don't think your words are exactly correct though. (I think AI is simulating me)

Evidence?

We already have VR which sends vision to your eyes and sound to your ears and you can use your muscles to interact with the world. I think it is reasonable to believe that one day those things could be directly sent/received to your brain.

Here is a much more parsimonious idea: You are a real person living in a real world, as am I and everyone else.

Does this idea bother you?

Actually it does. If there is no afterlife and my life seems bleak then suicide seems like an attractive way to end my suffering.

 

[excreationist]

And I ask again: why do you believe it is probable that you are the only conscious entity in the alleged simulaton?

Maybe you have answered this but I missed it, so please answer again or link the post where you answered the question.

I'm saying the player is the only thing that is conscious. Their consciousness exists outside of the simulation rather than solely being "in" the simulation. If I am in a Roy kind of game and feel the sensations of consciousness then I am the player controlled character. I could go on for a long time about why a player, particularly an INTP type, would find my life interesting. (BTW at university I made a remake of Wolfenstein 3-D in Unreal and it made the global gaming news and my flatmate had heard of it - but it was shut down due to copyright reasons). Later I made Lego Wolf3D which wasn't shut down:

LEGO® Wolf3D - A fan-made game combining LEGO® and Wolfenstein 3-D®

 

[excreationist]

The whole point of the joke, which you seem not to have even noticed was a joke, is that nobody would actually want to create or play a game that entails working at a boring carpet store

Well lots of people find quests in games very boring too - they call it "grinding". But other aspects of the game can make up for it. There are also rage bait games that can be incredibly frustrating but they are good to show on YouTube. BTW being in the "zone" in a game means to be in the area between boredom and frustration - though it can be hard for games to reliably do this.

 

[excreationist]

More AI videos: (at least most of them are because they have the "Sora" watermark)



Those animals seemed to be in genuine distress though in reality they are p zombies. But I kind of feel sorry for the animals and empathize with them anyway...

 

[Swammerdami]

I have driven in six different countries*, and in each country, the rule is that you must drive on the left.

* England, Australia, Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, and Ireland.

Here's a quiz for you and fellow subjects of Charles III:

There is a bridge across the Moei River connecting Thailand and Myanmar. ( For a while I made a round-trip across this bridge once every 88 days to keep my paperwork in order.) It's a two-lane bridge except in the very middle where there is a peculiar X intersection where traffic must zig or zag single-file.​

​

Question: Which switch is which?

Spoiler: Hint, spoiled to minimize the hijack

Each end of the bridge has a tiresome immigration check-point so many local travelers cross the River under the bridge to save time.

By the old Moulmein Pagoda, lookin' lazy at the sea,
There's a Burma girl a-settin', and I know she thinks o' me;
For the wind is in the palm-trees, and the temple-bells they say:
"Come you back, you British soldier; come you back to Mandalay!"
                             Come you back to Mandalay,
                             Where the old Flotilla lay:
Can't you 'ear their paddles chunkin' from Rangoon to Mandalay?
                             On the road to Mandalay,
                             Where the flyin'-fishes play,
An' the dawn comes up like thunder outer China 'crost the Bay!

'Er petticoat was yaller an' 'er little cap was green,
An' 'er name was Supi-yaw-lat –jes' the same as Theebaw's Queen,
An' I seed her first a-smokin' of a whackin' white cheroot,
An' a-wastin' Christian kisses on an 'eathen idol's foot:
                             Bloomin' idol made o' mud
                             Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd
Plucky lot she cared for idols when I kissed 'er where she stud!
                             On the road to Mandalay...

. . .
But that's all shove be'ind me–long ago an' fur away
An' there ain't no 'buses runnin' from the Bank to Mandalay;
An' I'm learnin' 'ere in London what the ten-year soldier tells:
"If you've 'eard the East a-callin', you won't never 'eed naught else."
                             No! you won't 'eed nothin' else
                             But them spicy garlic smells,
An' the sunshine an' the palm-trees an' the tinkly temple-bells;
                             On the road to Mandalay...

. . .

(I wanted to indent the lines which Kipling indents but, as so much with the "editor" here, Indent tagging is broken.)

 

[bilby]

Apparently 1984 is a satire too.

YES!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Everyone carries a phone that can take pictures; If they see something that looks a bit odd, they'll likely photograph it, and the way cameras on phones work can lead to odd effects when capturing moving objects (and SLR cameras can do odd things too).

Yup, people with DSLRs often know enough about how things work to deliberately cause odd effects. I've done it myself--rays of sunlight. When the sun is low in the sky step your lens way down, point it at something that's partially occluding the sun. You'll get an image with a starburst, one ray per petal in the piece that steps the lens down. (For safety, no long lenses, do it quickly.)

Or the tourist remover filter. Sounds impossible, doesn't it? It's just a very dark filter. Put the camera on a tripod, compose your shot, put the filter on carefully, take your picture. It's so dark the time exposure goes into the minutes. It pretty much removes anything moving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you asked yourself why the putative simulators would make you, and you alone, conscious? Why make anyone conscious if they are just running some sort of stupid video game? And why you in particular?

Yeah. Try to fit historical "reality" with the observed reality and we could be the people in a Populous game where the players have wandered off, leaving the game running. All the historical evidence of religion working was the players, but now they're AFK.

But why would only some be conscious?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

P Zombie is a new one for me, I had to look it up. From the wiki pane my guess it is an arftiofact of the psjhedelics of the day.

Not just as a tool, but relevant in the real world. A P zombie is a machine, not a mind, no matter how human-like it might appear. Thus there's nothing immoral about bringing harm to it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My own position, fwiw, is that while p-zombies are logically conceivable, they are physically and metaphysically impossible.

Why? We already have the beginnings of them now: things like Siri and Alexa.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It’s the exact same problem with the so-called “fine tuning argument” — gosh, what are the odds that the constants of nature are just right to support life, and if they were a tiny bit different no life would be possible?

Well first, it’s not really at all clear that different combinations of constants would fail to yield life, though it might be life not as we know it (paging Mr. Spock).

They have to be very close to where they are now in order for an environment that can support life to exist.

Look at a simple one: Maximum mass of a white dwarf is 1.44(?) solar masses. Maximum mass of a neutron star is 2.? solar masses. Change the constants a bit and neutron stars do not exist--when a big star dies you get a core collapse without a detonation (which is believed to be the fate of big enough stars even now--the core goes black hole and the star just falls in), thus no planets.

 

[excreationist]

My own position, fwiw, is that while p-zombies are logically conceivable, they are physically and metaphysically impossible.

Why? We already have the beginnings of them now: things like Siri and Alexa.

I'm not sure if anyone would think those literally have a human mind... (though you talked about the "beginnings").
But I think many/most ordinary people would assume these voices from a year ago do: (see also about 11 minutes in) [if you didn't tell them it was AI] it not only is about what they say but their very human-like voices seeming to involve genuine emotions... they can also respond very quickly and allow you to cut them off if you talk over them...

Here are p zombies of animals (post #887)
This is about generating facial expressions as well as the personality:

I mean part of what makes people appear to experience genuine emotions and consciousness is their facial expressions/behaviour.

 

[Swammerdami]

I have driven in six different countries*, and in each country, the rule is that you must drive on the left.
* England, Australia, Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, and Ireland.

Here's a quiz for you and fellow subjects of Charles III:

There is a bridge across the Moei River connecting Thailand and Myanmar. ( For a while I made a round-trip across this bridge once every 88 days to keep my paperwork in order.) It's a two-lane bridge except in the very middle where there is a peculiar X intersection where traffic must zig or zag single-file.​

Question: Which switch is which?

Let's not let this puzzle go unspoiled.

Spoiler

Vehicles from the Burmese side veer to the left in the middle of the bridge and remain on the left throughout their visit in Thailand.
Vehicles from the Thai side veer to the right and remain on the right throughout their visit in Burma.
This is OPPOSITE to what seems expected: Burma was part of the Empire of the Never-Setting Sun, while Thailand is one of the few countries never owned or controlled by a European power.

Myanmar was a British colony and drove on the left, like the United Kingdom, until General Ne Win ordered the switch to driving on the right in 1970. Possible reasons for the change:
* Symbolic break from the past: The move was likely a way to sever ties with its British colonial history.
* Astrology/superstition: Some reports suggest the decision was based on the advice of an astrologer or a dream, possibly to avert bad luck.

Despite the change to driving on the right, most vehicles are still right-hand drive, as they are imported second-hand from countries like Japan. This creates unique driving conditions where the steering wheel is on the right side of the car, but drivers are on the right side of the roads.

Thailand drives on the left due to significant British influence, particularly during the reign of King Rama V (who was tutored by the British governess Anna Leonowens, made famous in a movie where Yul Brynner played Rama V's father). The British monarchy gifted King Rama V a car, which had a right-side steering wheel, leading the Thai to develop their road infrastructure to accommodate left-hand traffic.