What are some of the properties of the simulation we live in? - Page 3

While we may know all that, they wouldn't because they have no way of acquiring information from one another. If you could only see and I could only hear, how could we possibly communicate our perceptions? I mean, if I can only hear all I know are sounds and you only colors. Without the tactile, neither of us would even know we have bodies.

Quote

08-25-2024 , 07:16 PM

#52

REDeYeS00

always sloppy

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 23,903

Quote:

Originally Posted by John21

one question is if it is necessary they communicate
your comments seem to suggest their perception is somehow less valid if they only possess a single sense
another way to frame it is they are experts in specific situations and their feedback is invaluable

Quote

08-30-2024 , 09:38 PM

#53

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,570

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDeYeS00

Invaluable to whom or what?

If all you know are colors, you wouldn't even know you knew colors because we defined the term to refer to something that is similar to other things (perceptions) but dissimilar to the type of perception. Same goes with sounds, touch, etc. It seems like that requires something that's neither to create an perceptual or dimensional interchange. Otherwise it's like one being aware of only the odometer and the other only a clock and trying to conceive velocity.

Quote

08-30-2024 , 10:06 PM

#54

REDeYeS00

always sloppy

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 23,903

and if all you know is color your perception of it is unpolluted by anything else

Quote

09-13-2024 , 05:59 PM

#55

wazz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 14,838

Simulation theory is just theism dressed in drag.

Quote

09-20-2024 , 05:23 AM

#56

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,586

A couple quotes I came across back-to-back yesterday:

1. (It's easy to be seduced by the face nature reveals to our senses." -- (heard it, not sure the source)

2. "It's hard to counteract the validity of sensory experience." -- Susanna Kaysen, Girl Interrupted

Both are getting at something similar in regard to any disparity between the seeming and actual nature of things.

Quote

09-20-2024 , 03:36 PM

#57

Tuma

Worships Amon-Ra

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 16,768

Ohtani is Neo.

Quote

09-20-2024 , 08:15 PM

#58

Gregory Illinivich

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2024 Posts: 258

The suggestion that we live in a simulation reminds me of a section from a Peter Kreeft lecture. Ultimately, the lecture is a critique of Hegel but not in respect to this specific point:

Quote:

Hegel emerges historically from Kant through his response to the central point of Kant's epistemology, namely what Kant called his Copernican Revolution in philosophy, which was the redefining of truth as not the mind conforming to its object—which all previous philosophers had assumed—but the object conforming to the mind. All form and meaning, and truth itself, was imposed on the object by the subject, though this was not subjective in the sense that it was individual and free, but it was universal and necessary. This was Kant's attempt to answer Hume's skepticism, but it actually exacerbated that skepticism since Hume at least allowed that we had probable knowledge of objective reality through our senses, while Kant denied that we could ever know any things in themselves, or objective reality as it really is. We could know only the appearances that were structured by our own forms of knowing—sensory (space and time) and logical (the basic categories of thought) and metaphysical (the ideas of God, self, and world)—as what he called the ideas of pure reason. These three structures were necessary and universal, but they were subjective; they were from us, not from reality. All categories were our categories, not reality's categories. Now, Hegel perceived that Kant's dualism between knowable phenomena and unknowable things in themselves was self-contradictory. If we could not ever know things in themselves, how could we know that such things existed at all? How could we know unknowables? As Wittgenstein later said, "In order to draw a limit to thought, thought must think both sides of that limit." Think about that for a minute. Not only to think what x is but also to think that x is is to think x, otherwise we would not be thinking that x is but that something else is.

Quote

09-20-2024 , 08:20 PM

#59

REDeYeS00

always sloppy

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 23,903

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuma

Ohtani is Neo.

unable to formulate a counterpoint

Quote

09-21-2024 , 06:30 PM

#60

MacOneDouble

old hand

Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 1,758

The simulators are our future selves.

Quote

Yesterday , 01:59 AM

#61

FellaGaga-52

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2018 Posts: 8,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacOneDouble

The simulators are our future selves.

Or AI where intelligence is no factor. Or, my pet theory, the universe itself with its omnipresent quantum fields is itself the virtual reality that is a simulation. That idea is strong on parsimony ... as in trillions of galaxies versus zero.

Quote

Today , 04:16 PM

#62

John21

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,570

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregory Illinivich

The suggestion that we live in a simulation reminds me of a section from a Peter Kreeft lecture. Ultimately, the lecture is a critique of Hegel but not in respect to this specific point:
.... If we could not ever know things in themselves, how could we know that such things existed at all?

Kant counters Berkeleyan idealism too. So he's basically arguing: if phenomena and phenomena are not the cause of their own existence, then.... noumena.

Quote

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last