Talk:Dream argument

--Qualiam (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

argument against simulated reality

"The main counter argument against simulated reality is the brain's own physical limitations. The brain has a limited capability for imagination (in it's capability for creating synapses, and physical reality as we know it exceeds it in complexity. Another counter point is that simulated reality disregards the intelligence barrier to achieving genius ideas."

The brain, in fact, creates "simulated realities" so there isn't really a debate about whether it happens or not. In fact, what you perceive as "reality" is actually simulated by the brain as well, since the brain doesn't directly experience anything.

The Simulation Hypothesis is that everything we see is simulatd all the time, nto that there are lots of little mini-simulations going on in an unsimulated, shared reality. Dreaming doesn't prove the SH any more than computer games do.1Z (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The brain even edits out a lot of the details potentially available for in brain simulation for precisely the reasons you point out.

Lordvolton (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Simulated reality section

--Qualiam (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC) This claim is dubious:

This also silences those who claim a simulated reality requires far fetched scientific technology, since the only apparatus needed to construct a simulated reality is a human brain.

If the only apparatus needed to construct a reality simulation is a human brain, then we no longer need to imagine brains-in-vats or brains-in-bodies, we just need to imagine brains-in-and-of-themselves. A brain by itself cannot construct a simulated reality, a brain also necessarily requires 'appropriate' stimulation. True, brains can generate their own signals, to a point. But even this ability requires energy, chemicals, blood, etc which the brain is incapable of producing without being in/part of an appropriate environment, hence the necessity for bodies...or vats (far fetched scientific technology).

You're lost in your own semantics.

Imagine if I said it would require a computer a billion billion times more power than the most powerful computer we'll have a million years in the future. You could make an equally questionable analysis by saying, "Ah, but it would require someone to build it. And that would require carbon or atoms. And that would need a universe of some sort. And that might require motion which must come from somewhere. How silly to say it requires only a powerful computer."

Or maybe I could say something like, "Tennis only requires two people to play a game." And then you could say, "Ah, but you need tennis rackets. And that requires humans to build them. And how can you play tennis without a tennis court? Aha! So it takes more than two people after all."

That's a really long way of saying, you've missed the point. Lordvolton (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...absolute rubbish. I think youve missed my point. To keep with your (dodgy) tennis analogy, I can play tennis on my x-box, which only involves one person...me. Whats of crucial importance here is the assumptions we make based on the statements context. "Tennis requires only two people to play a game" immediately sets the tone, by using the concept 'playing', of an activity involving intentional agents. That is, your statement is meaningfully part of a context such as 'Tiddly winks is a game that requires only one player". What tools, implements, artifacts or devices are necessary to this game-playing are totally irrelevant and superfluous to the statements context...which you correctly pointed out. However, there are two people in my lounge right now, and we are playing a game, does this necessarily mean that it is tennis we are playing (2 people + playing game = tennis)? Of course not. Playing tennis requires other 'things' beyond just two people.

Playing tennis cannot be reduced, as much as you wish it to be, to two people. This fact dosnt make the statement "Tennis requires two people to play a game" false, anymore than "Driving a car requires petrol" is falsified or refuted by fan belts, spark plugs and accelerator pedals. What is important here is context. My gripe with the 'we dont need far fetched technology re: brain sims' is that this is over reductive, past the point of usefulness and meaning. The whole point is to propose what, at an absolute minimum, is req'd for X to occur. For a game of tennis, it is two people/appte venue/appte equipment. Astroturf or cork based courts are not explicitly necessary: we can play tennis in my lounge using the sofa as a net, or frying pans as racquets. Again, we are trying to establish THE BARE ESSENTIALS. A brain, by itself, is simply not enough to 'create a simulated reality'. It requires appropriate input/stimulation...be it electrical signals from a computer or light photons.

Your counter argument is a red herring. You are being a greedy reductionist.--Qualiam (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You can play alone? Ah, but did you build the gaming console? And what about the chair you're sitting in to play the game? Using your logic we could extrapolate hundreds, even thousands of people are required for you to play tennis alone.

But as long as you're stating "I can play tennis on my xbox, which only involves one person" it isn't much of a leap for us to conclude that you can dream alone too. And this brings up back to the original point. No super computer required -- just neurons firing away. Even Helen Keller dreamt.

And as a final point, a simulated brain wouldn't need chemicals. Anymore than simulated rain requires H20. And even what you consider to be "reality" is itself a simulation all running inside your head. The computer screen you're reading right now isn't being teleported across space, your brain is reconstructing a copy (a rough copy at that) in your brain. Lordvolton (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Whohoa, hold on a second there Tonto. You seem to be conflating a number of issues here, and making a mess of things in the process. Your last paragraph is philosophically dodgy, to say the least. On one hand you are proposing a simulated brain, and a simulated reality, then in the next breath youre stating that this simulation is a reconstruction performed by, err, a 'real' (ie non-simulated) brain?! I mean, c'mon, that kind of undergrad reasoning is not going to cut it. Just reconsider your last sentence: "...your brain is reconstructing a copy...in your brain." As Wittgenstein might say of that: utter nonsense. Your going to have to present your argument in a less circular and dogmatic form to convince me that you know what youre talking about.

Forget the tennis analogy, I know I rather would. Its similiarities to the topic on this page (simld reality/dream argument) are metaphorical, and so prone to misunderstanding. My objections to the section removed still stand, and as per discussion others have agreed. You must present an argument as to why "the only apparatus needed to construct a simulated reality is a human brain" should be acceptable as true. Until we come to some agreement, the section that mentions this should remain off the main article. Your coming back with what you see as a viable retort and then replacing the text to the main page is annoying, not educative or helpful. If you actually present me with a good argument, Ill be more than happy to accept you are right. Engage me in the argument at hand, dont resort to red herrings.

Why is the brain the only apparatus needed to construct a simulated reality? Remember, there are brains-in-jars in autopsy labs throughtout the world. Are these brains capable of generating simulated realities? Of dreaming? Were the contents of Keller's dreams based, at least in part, on waking experiences? That is, experiences she had not just as a brain, but a whole body? These kinds of questions, though you might find them annoying ("I want to simplify it ALL to just the brain!!"), are very important. I see no reason why the stimulus should be ruled out as a necessary element a priori, as you are wanting to do. I see 3 necessary things here: stimulus/stimulant, stimulated, and simulation. Yes, arguably, dreams demonstrate that the brain could 'do' all 3 by itself. But using this as decisive 'proof' and "well, if it can happen then, it can happen all the time!" is a bit like a brain surgeon claiming that all he needs to be a brain surgeon is his neurological tools. No, all he needs to perform surgery is his tools. To actually be a brain surgeon required years at medical school too. Yes, he also needed to eat food and breathe. But we dont need to bring them into the equation (which is what you erroneously think I am trying to do regarding my objections to the brain simn). Why dont we need to? Because those things are what every living human needs to be a living human. And since the question was what the surgeon needs to be a surgeon, and not what the surgeon needs to be a living human being, we need not concern ourselves with Universals such as food and air. Food and air are common sense assumptions. However, when we are arguing about what is required to create a reality simulation, ALL assumptions are OFF. We are arguing bare-bone basics here. Qualiam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.86.77 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tonto? Obviously you don't speak Spanish or you're a fan of the Lone Ranger whose handle on Spanish was equally condescending. It means "fool". I also noticed that your only edits are to this article which raises my suspicion that your account was created specifically for that purpose, but thankfully we have your ip address so we can verify that: 222.154.86.77

Using secondary accounts to stir the pot is a violation of wikipedia guidelines.Lordvolton (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the results of the ip search.

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, APNIC, PO Box 2131, Milton, QLD, 4064, AU

Are there any other contributors editing the page from Milton, QLD, Australia? If so, that's our huckleberry. Milton is a coastal community which looks pretty nice. Here is some more information on Milton, Australia.

http://www.southcoast.com.au/milton/index.html

Lordvolton (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Did no-one catch my name at the end of my post: 'Qualiam'. I had written the latest post without signing in. Nothing insidious, no conspiracy. Im actually in New Zealand. If there was any 'real' (ie non-simulated) investigative work done, it wouldve been obvious that my 'unsigned' post had the same ip as all my properly signed posts. Sheesh.

Apologies for calling the user LordVolton a fool. His philosophical skills are what I have concerns about. He still has not addressed my argument, and persists in replacing the removed section without resolving the debate.

So what if this has been the only article Ive debated? Im a lurker, largely. Ive demonsrated that Im not a vandal, Im more than willing to debate the section in question. It is LordVolton who is making this an issue of personality. Rubbish. All my arguments are philosophical. Let Volton step up to the plate. Signed, Qualiam.--Qualiam (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is the only article you're ever edited that's fine, but if this a secondary account that you've created to stir that pot that's a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. For example, if you have another banned account and you've created this account that would be a violation. Or if you created this account to create a consensus with your primary account that is also a violation.

A little more investigative work on our part will reveal your other primary account, if indeed one exists. Removing sections as "rubbish" and then asking for calm, cool debate is hypocritical at best. This isn't the first time you've forgotten to sign an edit -- I'm sure we'll find a match with your other accounts if you want to put us to the trouble.Lordvolton (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, I am not 'out to get you'. Im not here to cause trouble, vandalise, create sockpuppet accounts, or conspire against you. As I said, Im primarily a lurker. I read this article back in the beginning of the year. I thought the 'simld reality' section of the article displayed poor reasoning. I couldntve cared less who wrote it. Obviously, it was you. I still could care less. I proceeded to voice my objection to the section, here, and left it at that. Some time later, TWO other editors agreed that the section was dubious, and should be removed. Again, I did not remove the section. Youve since come back, retorted, reworded slightly, and then without further discussion taken it upon yourself to reinstate the section. Your actions, I think, are suspect. If anything, they reveal that the section has personal, vested interest for you, and is most likely OR. As far as Im aware, I have only made one unsigned edit. If I have made any more, my apologies. As youve noted, my contributions have been minimal, so Ive probably 'been a newbie' and missed a sig out of ignorance. Again, my problem is that the dubious section is 'confused'. If I find it confused (whats its point? Is it even relevant to the article?), then there will be others too. There have been others. You said that I missed your point. At least two other editors, then, have missed your point as well.--Qualiam (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

...as a postscript: Im sure you (LV) do not want this to become a lame edit war. Which is why this argument should be settled here in discussion, not in a to-and-fro-undoing of each others edits to the main article. I think the section that has been removed should remain removed until this argument is resolved. I dont think you have the editorial upperhand here, and your reverts are nonproductive. Why? I initially proposed discussion on the dubious section, and I did not remove the section. Several other posters agreed with my concerns, and someone else, NOT me, removed the dubious section. You came into the discussion after the fact, which is fine, but then decided that your retort was effective enough, without further discussion, to reinstate the dubious section. I find this highly questionable. Again, I did not originally remove the dubious section, someone else who agreed with my points did. Ive been more than accomodating concerning the proper procedure for resolving topic conflicts. You have a vested ineterest in keeping the dubious section on the topic page, which is why you are resorting to red herrings and making this a 'personal' thing. Please, lets stick with the philosophical issues. Lets debate. You have shown no willingness to see my arguments points, and dismiss them with a wave of your hand without further discourse. I think you are fundamentally wrong regarding your assertions on this topic. Can we please keep the dubious section off the article page until we come to some sort of understanding?--Qualiam (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Qualiam. Actually, the whole section is dubious. I'm in favor of removing it. Graymornings (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Section should be removed, OR and irrelevant. 1Z

Article

I'm submitting an articl, (not sure of category) that examines the biological basis of dreaming and nightmares. Here's the link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n6/lewis-13.htm Thanking you for the consideration, Artsandopinion (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

Not really about the Dream Argument. 1Z (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Simulated Reality Section II

This is still unresolved. Seeing as this section is unsourced, I assume it is OR. If that is the case, if it can be shown to be dubious, it should be removed. In all honesty, I cannot determine what the point of the section is: what is it trying to demonstrate? There are only two points I see it as making: one is trivial, the other is irrelevant to the article.

Dreaming provides a springboard for those who question whether our own reality may be an illusion. The ability of the brain to trick itself into believing a neuronally generated world is the "real world" means at least one variety of simulated reality is a common, even nightly event.

Those who argue that the world is not simulated must concede that the mind — at least the sleeping mind — is not itself a reliable mechanism for an analysis attempting to differentiate reality from illusion by nature of its own inability to distinguish between reality states.

A couple of issues here. Firstly, our minds are the only 'mechanisms' by which illusion can be differentiated from 'real'. To argue that the mind is an unreliable mechanism in this regard is like arguing that the earth is an unreliable place to live because people die here. As far as we know, the earth is the only viable place to live. We're stuck with our minds, and stuck with the earth. I find the claim that 'the mind is unreliable' to be circular and self-defeating: it is your mind, afterall, that enables you to make such a claim, and it is your mind that has enabled you to be a sceptic in the first place. If the mind were not reliable, you could not make such claims. Being reliable does not equate to being infallible. It is by virtue of our minds reliability that we can in fact determine when it has been erroneous.

What is a 'neuronally generated world'? Ive never heard of such a world. Do I have to go visit 20 other wiki pages to find out what this means? How do we distinguish between 'neuronally generated worlds' and 'non-neuronally generated worlds'? Is there even such a distinction?

This could be seen as a challenge to those who claim a simulated reality requires highly advanced scientific technology, since the only apparatus needed to construct a simulated reality capable of fooling the unconscious mind is a human brain.

Firstly, I have no idea what is meant by 'fooling the unconscious mind'?? How does the brain fool the unconscious mind? Is this dualism? Freudian? Theres a mish-mash of concepts here. Secondly, we better head over to the brain-in-a-vat page and alert everyone that there is a much more economical thought experiment: brain-in-a-petrie-dish. Or better yet, brain-in-a-vaccuum. Since when has dreaming been proof that the only apparatus needed to construct...is a human brain? I still dream whether Im postulated as being a BIAV, in a Matrix, or part of an ancestor simulation. Yes, the brain plays a crucial causal role in the 'simulation' experience, but then so does the environment the brain is in.

So, what is this section trying to demonstrate? If, as per the sections last statement above, the point is that advanced scientific technology is not a requirement to generating a simulation, then I doubt anyone over the age of 10 needs to come to wikipedia to acknowledge this. My body, the one I am conscious of, has no wires coming from it, no electrodes exiting my head and feeding into some supercomputer. So, as far as Im concerned, common sense and not a wiki entry has me believe that what I see is real, and any contribution I am making to my experience of said reality is all 'me' and not a computer. For this reason, the section is trivial.

If, however, the section is trying to demonstrate that sceptical arguments (BIAV, Matrix, Ancestor simn) are based on superfluities, then this article is hardly the place to do so. Again, any 'brain' in any of the ontological scenarios will still have dreaming and waking experiences. The point of such sceptic arguments is to demonstrate the limits of empiricism. Dreaming hardly provides any kind of evidence in this matter. Also, assuming the brain to have ontological status a priori is fallicious. Why should the brain have ontological primacy over any other macro-object that one can see/touch/etc? So again, the assumption that the brain is all that is needed in order to generate a reality simulation is dubious. And once more, what has this got to do with dreaming?

I think the author of this section needs to better explain his points. Signed, Qualiam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualiam (talk • contribs) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

At least you're acknowledging that the real problem people have with the dream argument stems from biases flowing from the simulated reality article. So they come here to continue grinding that axe. It's amusing.

But the fact remains that your dreams fool you almost every night. Not a super computer 100 years in the future. 20 watts of power running through some neurons completely tricks you into believing a simulated reality is the real mccoy. So we need not speculate about some distant future where you might find yourself in a simulated reality you cannot differentiate from the true reality.

Bostrom goes to great lengths to imagine a future where simulated realities might exist in order to conclude we might be living in a simulated reality today. The whole argument rests on a theoretical that is not necessary since we know for a fact that our brains, the same brain(s) that a computer is supposed to trick, is hood winked every 24 hours.

So that apparatus is not trustworthy. I need not imagine a future reality that might trick me when I live in one today that tricks me. And yes, the brain in a vat people need to come back and more carefully consider dreams. Descartes imagines a world that is made of Papier-mâché, but we don't need an "evil genius" when we're perfectly capable of creating such worlds in our own minds -- or so the story goes.

If your brain were on trial over whether it could distinguish "reality" from "simulation" the very first question it would be asked is, "Have you ever confused an illusion with reality?" And the answer would be, "Yes. Every night." After a lot of pacing back and forth in front of the jury the prosecutor simply say, "Why then, after admitting that every 24 hours you're tricked, are you so sure you're not being tricked right now?"

Silence...

"Mr. Jones? Please answer the question." =-)

Lordvolton (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychosis

While we're on the topic of the simulated reality article there is a reference to psychosis. An individual suffering from schizophrenia that is having hallucinations would probably not be an excellent reference point to determine if something is simulated or real.

And that point is missed by those who have faith that rivals Moses when it comes to their senses.

These are the same people, many of them wikipedia editors and others fine folks, who are experiencing nightly hallucinations and then waking up and writing about the world being exactly as it appears using the same brain that moments ago they couldn't trust. For some reason they view those who are having "waking dreams" as unreliable sources, but their own senses which are at least partially unreliable as somehow above the fray.

Perhaps part of the reason they dislike the dream argument so much is because it puts their own senses on trial. After all, if you cannot trust your own brain... what can you trust?

Lordvolton (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)