http://mashable.com/2016/06/02/elon-musk-simulated-reality/#sdLXHm2_jsqB
2,657 thoughts on “Elon Musk Thinks Evolution is Bullshit.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
KN:
keiths:
KN:
To know that we are not being fooled is to have a justified true belief that we are not being fooled, yet you acknowledge that this “has a likelihood of being true that cannot be estimated.”
That seems ok to me.
I was referring specifically to Boston’s argument that we are living in a simulation. It relies on assumptions to which we cannot assign a truth-value (we cannot know if the assumptions are true or false).
Incoherent nonsense.
All fluent speakers of English can see that your attempt to reify logic is nonsensical.
When you have some objective, empirical evidence supporting the existence of such an entity you may be justified in making claims about it. Until then your “god” is just a word without a real world referent. Literally nonsense.
Moved a comment to Guano. Address the ideas not the people.
keiths, to KN;
walto:
Hypothetical conversation:
KN:
Yes, and you reached this conclusion regarding Bostrom’s claim:
If we can’t estimate the likelihood of Bostrom’s claim being true, then we can’t estimate the likelihood that your contrary claim is true.
How can you claim to know something if you have no idea whether it’s true?
I’m warming to this simulation idea. It would explain a great deal…
Here’s how I now think of it:
We (humans) are like role-playing characters to some advanced group of aliens (I’ll call them Xenos). Xenos ‘play’ in this human simulation game as part of a series of contests. Xenos get points for engaging in these contests, but there’s also an entertainment element to these contests. Any Xeno that enters the human simulation does so with full knowledge of certain criteria: 1) participants in the simulation are blocked from knowing they are in a simulation, 2) knowing anything about the ‘reality’ outside the simulation, and 3) cannot know the rules for garnering points within the simulation (although hints and clues have been placed in the simulation…even within the role-playing characters themselves…to help contestants along.) Also, 4) participants do not get to choose their characters.
The basic rule for points is this: interact within the simulation for as long as you can in the character you get. Players get points based on the relative difficulty of engaging in certain activities. As you might have realized, activities that are “fun” do not (in most cases) offer that many points. Activities that are considered “bad” (within the simulation) also do not offer that many points and further, since they generally attract other folks with similar “ethically-flexible” viewpoints, tend to lead to short-lived characters (and thus, fewer points). If you get bored or frustrated, you can always commit suicide to leave the game, however you will clearly limit your point potential if you do. There are, of course, situations wherein players get characters that glitch early in their immersion (infant mortality being a prime example); these Xenos get an instant upgrade to easier to play characters if they choose to try again.
I have no idea what these Xenos use the points for. Likely a human’s life is simply a way for some Xeno to upgrade the equivalent of a Netflix package or better seats at some cosmic sporting event…
Not really related but my favourite twilight-zone twist would be that reincarnation is real and unbound by time – and that there’s only one person who is actually everyone. Karma writ large.
Oooo…even better!
Rich:
Ugh. That would mean that all one of us has to be Mung.
keiths,
But also Reciprocating Bill.
And now, my joke:
What do you get if you cross a Woodpecker with a Duck?
Reciprocating Bill.
Rich,
As much as I like RB, he can’t wash away the Munginess. Can’t we just leave Mung uninhabited?
Who said Logic is a mindless robot?
Thank you for demonstrating that this is really about the problem of other minds.
peace
The answer is revelation
peace
keiths,
Munginhabited.
Deceptive “revealers” would deceive. God on the other hand can not lie
Because he is God and therefore is trustworthy by definition
and because he has demonstrated himself to be faithful
peace
Worshiping God involves a lot more that singing. Even interacting with atheists on an obscure website can be an act of worship.
peace
I have lots of arguments just none that I feel inclined to share here. I’m much more interested in learning how things work in you all’s worldview.
Why does everything have to be adversarial with folks from your side of the fence? Why can’t we just learn from one another.
I for one am very interested in the simulation idea. It really does seem to be likely given a non-christian starting point.
I’d like to see how those of you who think we have a cognitive connection with objective reality justify that belief.
peace
Where do your beliefs come from if not from you?
Is your source trustworthy?
peace
PS I never said all my beliefs come from God. Just the true ones
Fyi
I don’t put a lot of stock in theistic arguments, if a person is argued into believing in God he is bound to falter when tested.
because
1) He makes himself out to be God, being the decider of what is a good argument and what is not. IOW he puts God in the dock
2) He can just as easily be argued out of believing in God if a more clever rebel comes along with a counter argument.
3) People don’t need to be convinced that God exists they already know that God exists.
peace
That is just re-stating your belief that god is the revealer. I’m asking how you know the revealer is not a deceptive one, how do you know it’s god?
Remember, you could be in the simulation, reading a book called the Bible, which the simulation programmers could have written. That book would not be from god, but from the programmers. The “revelations” in it would be lies, yet be exactly identical to the Bible you believe is a revelation from god. How would you tell the difference?
Yes God is, but not the simulation programmers. How do you know your revelation is from God, rather than from the simulation programmers?
That would of course be what the simulation programmers want you to believe THEY are. They are in effect claiming to be God.
The revelations you say you recieve, those could be part of the simulation. The simulation has been programmed to appear to those inside it, as if it contains revelations from God. How would we know, then?
Besides, the Bible — which is God’s word, according to fifth — says that God is a deceiver.
If the revealer was not the Christian God I could know nothing
I know this
therefore …….
see above
I’ve answered this many times. Here goes another try.
The proof that God exists is that without him I could prove nothing.
Did you get that??
peace
check it out
http://christianthinktank.com/godlies.html
peace
and
and
When you can show me that you have the authority to make such pronouncements from on high then we can talk.
No offense but as it is your comments come off as the ramblings of a small time crook impersonating an officer of the court
peace
Still wrong. Still rude. Still a violation of the site rules.
Why do you think one needs to estimate likelihoods to know something? That seems wrong to me.
ETA: Weren’t you one of the guys who thought animals know stuff? Does your cat do probability distributions?
Why should keith’s care that it seems wrong to you? Are you the decider?
peace
But I take it that you don’t think the above posts referring to Mung are ad hominem? Do you even know what that phrase means?
walto,
I think that it implies ‘they know there is a god but say there isn’t’, which would be lying?
Richardthughes,
Yeah, I get that. I’ve complained about those posts too–they’re both false and annoying. My complaint is that Patrick is a very Napoleonish moderator. He’s concerned only about (possible) violations in posts that are made in opposition to his own cherished and often extremely confused beliefs.
And he’s pompous about it.
Then it seems logic is unnecessary for knowledge.
walto,
If you read his posts in a squeaky voice with a lisp, it helps.
no. Logic is necessary.
Logic is the means/method that we use to evaluate revelation.
In the same way a song must be musical revelation must be logical.
peace
No it implies that their words say that there is no God but their actions say he exists.
It’s not that they are lying but that they are very inconsistent. The bible calls this sort of thing being double minded.
peace
Thanks. Will do.
walto,
I’m not talking about numerical estimates, though they qualify.
If knowledge is justified true belief, then if you think something is unlikely to be true, you don’t know it. If you have no idea how likely it is to be true, then you also don’t know it.
If you regard something as true, but have no idea how likely it is to be true, then your belief isn’t justified.
I agree, I would think that you need some sort of probability estimate of the reliability of your senses if your sense perceptions are the foundation of your knowledge.
Once again this is not about certainty but any knowledge whatsoever.
Do your perceptions make it more likely than not that you have cognitive contact with objective reality?
peace
fifth,
My solution is to attach an implicit asterisk to the end of all empirical truth claims, where the asterisk signifies:
Your truth claims get the asterisk just like everyone else’s.
I agree with the first third of those proclamations only. But it does hearten me to know that you’ve got these epistemic principles figured out. Good for you!
walto,
How can a belief be justified and true if you have no idea how likely it is to be true?
I don’t think it works like that. Rather, we have an indefinite list of options:
either (some version of) realism or idealism or a deceitful deity or an advanced simulation or . . .
and each proposal has to be evaluated on its own merits, as contrasted with competing proposals. Some versions of realism have to be rejected, and some versions of competitors of realism have to be rejected.
My claim here is that Bostrom’s proposal relies on severely problematic assumptions. Most central to my concerns is his assumption of the substrate-neutrality of consciousness. This assumption has to be in place for it to be possible that we are living in a simulation. If we grant this assumption (and many others, such as assumptions about technological progress), then his conclusion is warranted. In my view, the substrate-neutrality of consciousness is not (yet) warranted.
That’s not an argument in favor of my preferred view (critical direct realism — basically Sellars with some hefty additions of other things I think are true). That would require its own argument; it can’t be established simply by pointing out that Bostrom’s view is problematic.
How likely are any of your own beliefs to be true? What does that even mean? When is it knowledge? At 78 percent?
cool
My asterisk says
*Assuming the Christian God exists.
I think that our asterisks capture essentially the same thought just from different perspectives.
peace
Justification shouldn’t be confused with likelihood of being true.
Sorry. If it wasn’t clear, I was responding to Keiths. I hadn’t seen kn’s intervening post.
ETA: now that I have, I don’t quite see these matters as KN does either.
What’s your take?
I should note that I made one rather serious error in my previous comments. If we are living in a simulation, it does not follow that we do not, in fact, perceive physical objects. It follows, rather, that we are systematically deceived about their fundamental nature. Physical objects are composed of computational processes, rather than particles (whatever those are — fluctuations in a quantum field, I guess?).
I still find it hard to get worked up over a proposal that has no implications for experience or for science, though.
walto,
Science takes 6 sigma I believe.
Kantian Naturalist,
Oh I don’t know. I’ll just say that my views tend to relatively simple and shallow. You shoot higher (i.e for depth), but I don’t always find the clarity I need.
I really liked Sellars when I was in grad school, but I came to realize I didn’t really understand him. And when he disagreed with other philosophers in published correspondence (like firth and chisholm) when I COULD understand him I often agreed with the other guy. Now, this isn’t intended as a criticism of Sellars or you, it’s just, you know, different strokes.
As I said I’m hoping to learn more Kant this summer by reading Bounds of Sense. If I grasp that, maybe I’ll come back around to Sellars….
Anyhow, epistemology is too hard to do here.