Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Enjoyed this. I don't think this is a good argument - "We shouldn't believe we are brains in a vat, because, per Occam's razor, that's an unnecessarily complicated theory to explain our experiences" - If we are a "brain in a vat" or some other version of simulated reality, we can't trust our knowledge about science and the physical world. So we would not be in a position to judge whether or not the simulation theory is less scientifically complicated than realism.
Great discussion! I would love to hear this topic discussed between Dr Huemer and David Chalmers, given the argument Chalmers lays out in his new and provocative book, Reality +.
I wander if the proponent of the brain in the vat scenario could take a kind of skeptical thiest route and say that if we are a brain in a vat there is no reason to think we could accurately guess the motivations of someone stimulating our brain. If this is true it seems impossible to say that the probability is low because we just cant assess the probabilities.
I would argue that it would be a strange experiment indeed wherein we could not assess the motivations of the scientist. It's my understanding that Skeptical Theism turns on the transcendence of God. Because in this argument the vat, brain, and presumably the scientist conducting the illusion are all finite and material it seems to me that even we were a brain in a vat, we at least have minds of the same kind as the scientist conducting the experiment. Why shouldn't we be able to guess with some accuracy at the goal of the scientist then?
@@johnbloedel346 The constraints to rational application are conditioned, in part, upon experiential content. As an example, on cannot genuinely imagine emotions that one has not had. Extending this example to other experiences, there wouldn't be a way to assume that we could understand the motivation of those who don't have similar experiences.
I wonder if nested simulations really can happen, if physicalism is true, then minds can only be created by physical brains (maybe including electrical brains) but then the beings in that simulation would not have the ability to create consciousness, as they would not be working with real physical matter. I found Huemer's argument, that the universe is too boring to be a simulation interesting. I was thinking the same in relation to God and the soul building theodicy, the soul building theodicy does address the problem of evil to some extent but if God really wanted to grow our soul, it would feel strange that we live in a world where we have to spend 90% of our time sleeping, eating, paying taxes and doing other mundane stuff.
Generally, in my opinion, you know exactly what you want to simulate, apart from simply "a simulation of our ancestors", if I personally were to make a simulation with conscious beings in it, my simulation would be perfect, no evil, and I would not include or allow 8 billion conscious people in it, with their ability to think and resonate, and use my processing power for everyone's vision, and basically everyone's brain and mental abilities.
You should do an entire podcast on machine functionalism. Also expanding on my previous comment Dr Heumer seems to base a lot of his arguments on knowing what the real world is like. But if we are in a simulation how do we know what the real world is like. Like in the case of Elon Musk being more likely to be in a simulation because his life is more interesting how do we know that the beings who live in base reality dont live incredibly boring lives and so the life I perceive as boring is incredibly interesting to them? What do you make of this response and the response in my previous comments?
I think you're points are pretty cogent actually. I had similar thoughts but didn't press Dr. Huemer on them. I've been planning a whole episode on Machine Functionalism with Brandon Rickabaugh. Hopefully we can make it happen soon
Seems like a lot of Huemers points would count equally towards God, God being a somewhat mysterious being that can control everything and make miracles whenever he feels like it
To be the entire theory is a non-starter because once you posit that this reality is not the actual reality, you are giving up any possibility of analysis of actual reality. Any attempt to say the simulation is likely true is completely unfounded because you have no access to the parameters of actual reality. Also, a funny thing I'd like to note is that many of Huemer's arguments against the simulation are similar to arguments atheists make against theism with the problem of evil, and which I don't think are valid. For example, Huemer says if this were a simulation things would be more interesting.... but what if this IS the "more interesting" version? What if there are possible simulations that are even more boring than this one? It's similar to atheists asking "why didn't God make a world with less suffering?" well how do you know this isn't that world?
Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
This was a great conversation about a fun topic and I am starting to listen for the second time. Keep up the good work my friend.
Enjoyed this. I don't think this is a good argument - "We shouldn't believe we are brains in a vat, because, per Occam's razor, that's an unnecessarily complicated theory to explain our experiences" - If we are a "brain in a vat" or some other version of simulated reality, we can't trust our knowledge about science and the physical world. So we would not be in a position to judge whether or not the simulation theory is less scientifically complicated than realism.
You sir have earned yourself one new subscriber (possibly more because I use multiple channels).
Haha that's awesome! Thank you!!
Great discussion! I would love to hear this topic discussed between Dr Huemer and David Chalmers, given the argument Chalmers lays out in his new and provocative book, Reality +.
Me too, especially if it was on my channel!
@@ParkersPensees That's definitely what I was hinting at! Keep up the awesome work!!!
I wander if the proponent of the brain in the vat scenario could take a kind of skeptical thiest route and say that if we are a brain in a vat there is no reason to think we could accurately guess the motivations of someone stimulating our brain. If this is true it seems impossible to say that the probability is low because we just cant assess the probabilities.
I would argue that it would be a strange experiment indeed wherein we could not assess the motivations of the scientist. It's my understanding that Skeptical Theism turns on the transcendence of God. Because in this argument the vat, brain, and presumably the scientist conducting the illusion are all finite and material it seems to me that even we were a brain in a vat, we at least have minds of the same kind as the scientist conducting the experiment. Why shouldn't we be able to guess with some accuracy at the goal of the scientist then?
@@johnbloedel346 The constraints to rational application are conditioned, in part, upon experiential content. As an example, on cannot genuinely imagine emotions that one has not had. Extending this example to other experiences, there wouldn't be a way to assume that we could understand the motivation of those who don't have similar experiences.
I wonder if nested simulations really can happen, if physicalism is true, then minds can only be created by physical brains (maybe including electrical brains) but then the beings in that simulation would not have the ability to create consciousness, as they would not be working with real physical matter.
I found Huemer's argument, that the universe is too boring to be a simulation interesting. I was thinking the same in relation to God and the soul building theodicy, the soul building theodicy does address the problem of evil to some extent but if God really wanted to grow our soul, it would feel strange that we live in a world where we have to spend 90% of our time sleeping, eating, paying taxes and doing other mundane stuff.
Generally, in my opinion, you know exactly what you want to simulate, apart from simply "a simulation of our ancestors", if I personally were to make a simulation with conscious beings in it, my simulation would be perfect, no evil, and I would not include or allow 8 billion conscious people in it, with their ability to think and resonate, and use my processing power for everyone's vision, and basically everyone's brain and mental abilities.
You should do an entire podcast on machine functionalism. Also expanding on my previous comment Dr Heumer seems to base a lot of his arguments on knowing what the real world is like. But if we are in a simulation how do we know what the real world is like. Like in the case of Elon Musk being more likely to be in a simulation because his life is more interesting how do we know that the beings who live in base reality dont live incredibly boring lives and so the life I perceive as boring is incredibly interesting to them? What do you make of this response and the response in my previous comments?
I think you're points are pretty cogent actually. I had similar thoughts but didn't press Dr. Huemer on them. I've been planning a whole episode on Machine Functionalism with Brandon Rickabaugh. Hopefully we can make it happen soon
38:30 If panpsychism is true, then I could be ANYTHING in a vat.
Or jusr a vat
I want to be a vat in a vat.
@@sebastiannickel4377 You can be a cat in a hat, or a vat in a vat, or a vat in a cat in a hat.
Thank you for this discussion. Huemer's argument misses the point of both rationalism and empiricism in ways I've never seen before.
Seems like a lot of Huemers points would count equally towards God, God being a somewhat mysterious being that can control everything and make miracles whenever he feels like it
To be the entire theory is a non-starter because once you posit that this reality is not the actual reality, you are giving up any possibility of analysis of actual reality. Any attempt to say the simulation is likely true is completely unfounded because you have no access to the parameters of actual reality.
Also, a funny thing I'd like to note is that many of Huemer's arguments against the simulation are similar to arguments atheists make against theism with the problem of evil, and which I don't think are valid. For example, Huemer says if this were a simulation things would be more interesting.... but what if this IS the "more interesting" version? What if there are possible simulations that are even more boring than this one? It's similar to atheists asking "why didn't God make a world with less suffering?" well how do you know this isn't that world?
I am 42 in a vat.