dfranke comments on We are not living in a simulation - Less Wrong

-9 Post author: dfranke 12 April 2011 01:55AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (211)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 April 2011 01:48:51PM 2 points [-]

If you want to claim that qualia are computations

You seem to be mixing up two separate arguments. In one argument I am for the sake of argument assuming the unproblematic existence of qualia and arguing, under this assumption, that qualia are possible in a simulation and therefore that we could (in principle) be living in a simulation. In the other argument (the current one) I simply answered your question about what sort of qualia skeptic I am.

So, in this argument, the current one, I am continuing the discussion where, in answer to your question, I have admitted to being a qualia skeptic more or less along the lines of Drescher and Dennett. This discussion is about my skepticism about the idea of qualia. This discussion is not about whether I think qualia are computations. It is about my skepticism.

Similarly, if I were admitting to skepticism about Santa Claus, it would not be an appropriate place to argue with me about whether Santa is a human or an elf.

Maybe you are basing your current focus on computations on Drescher's analogy with Lisp's gensyms. That's something for you to take up with Drescher. By now I've explained - at some length - what it is that resonated with me in Drescher's account and why. It doesn't depend on qualia being computations. It depends on there being a limit to perception.

Comment author: dfranke 12 April 2011 01:59:42PM 2 points [-]

Ok, I've really misunderstood you then. I didn't realize that you were taking a devil's advocate position in the other thread. I maintain the arguments I've made in both threads in challenge to all those commenters who do claim that qualia are computation.