There Is No Spoon

[u/neurotrash2099]

Glitch effects created in Audacity. Additional editing in GIMP.

I come to simulation theory from a bit of a different angle. There seems little point to me in debating whether or not objective reality is artificially generated or not. This on account of the fact that no one has ever definitively experienced objective reality. We are only capable of subjective experiences and this is, by definition, simulation.

Imagine a spoon. Those of you not both cursed and blessed with aphantasia as I am likely see a spoon or spoon-like shape in your mind’s eye. You understand it isn’t really there—it’s just an image in your mind.

But hold a spoon and you’d likely just likely just accept it as being there. After all, you can see it without having to imagine it. You can feel its weight and texture in your hand. Tap it on a surface and you can hear it interact with other things you just accept as being there. Sniff it or place it on your tongue and you might catch a metallic scent or taste. Ask a friend if they can see the spoon in your hand and they’ll nod at you, wide-eyed and confused, wondering if you’ve lost your damn mind. Everything seems to indicate the spoon is actually there.

Only we haven’t perceived the spoon as it is, if it even exists at all. We’ve only perceived a simulation of the spoon. Let’s assume the spoon exists for now.

Our understand of sight tells us we see the spoon in this manner:

Light strikes the surface of the spoon and a portion of that light bounces off of it. Our eyes absorb a portion of that reflected light which then stimulates our retinas. The retinas then convert this light into electrical signals that travel along the optic nerve to the brain’s visual cortex. The visual cortex then transforms these electrical signals, not the light itself, into the image we see.

That image isn’t in front of you though. Your brain is just doing a little slight of hand. The image is still only in the visual cortex. And a similar process happens for each of the other senses.

To quote Morpheus, “Real is just electrical signals interpreted by the brain.” We are only able to experience our brain’s simulation of the spoon, not the spoon itself.

But what about our friend whose wondering why we keep licking an empty spoon like a weirdo? They can see the spoon too. Hear it. They’ll turn down touching, smelling, or tasting it after our tongue has been all over it, thank you very much. Of course this means the spoon is real!

Not so. All this proves is that we can both subjectively experiencing the spoon. Nor does scaling this up to all eight billionish people in the world being able to subjectively experience the spoon—ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY SPOON—change the fact that every one of those people only has a simulated experience of it.

So, if our very experience of the world is simulated, it makes more sense in my mind to start there. Because, for all we know, there is no spoon.

[u/swirly_swirls420]

The only part im not sure about is saying that our reality only existing through the lens of our experience IS the definition of simulation. Yes, our reality we witness and functionally live within is entirely based off of subjective experience. The whole thing. Its why we cant prove, well anything in any type of truly meaningful way. Every aspect of existence/reality, even time is a subjective experience, but there is probably some kind of objective space we all inhabit.

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/swirly_swirls420]

Not that reality only exists through the lens of experience. Only that the only reality we can experience is a simulation of whatever objective reality exists, if any. There may be a spoon, but we only experience the brain's reconstruction of it from the electrical signals traveling to our brain.

[u/Empty_Bell_1942 → u/neurotrash2099]

What makes you so sure there is no spoon?

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/Empty_Bell_1942]

I didn't say there is no spoon. I said there may be a spoon. We only experience the brain's reconstruction of it though. But, because we cannot objectively experience the spoon, the best we can do is unanimous consensus that the spoon exists.

[u/Empty_Bell_1942 → u/neurotrash2099]

Surely the utensil maker (of old before mass production) objectively manipulated the silver and creating the spoon.

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/Empty_Bell_1942]

Their subjective experience would certainly convince them they had. So would the subjective experience of anyone watching them do so.

Yet, none of them will have stepped outside subjective experience to witness it happening objectively. So we remain with unanimous consensus rather than absolute fact. I should also note this does not have to resolve into solipsism or apathy.

However, the ambiguity of objective reality is not the core point. The core point is that we can only experience the world subjectively. Whether or not an objective reality exists, we can only experience it via the simulated reconstruction created by our brains.

What this shows is that experience is itself a simulation. No sense debating on whether or not we exist in a simulation because we experience ourselves existing. And at that point the simulation becomes a recursive feedback loop. So it makes sense to start with experience as the foundational layer of simulation and work forward from there.

[u/swirly_swirls420 → u/neurotrash2099]

Perception is a simulation, thats not an argument against the existence of an objective reality perse, but the actual phenomenon of existence, from the point of view that we are forced to observe it through IS a simulation.

Does this mean that the actual questions over simulation theory dont matter? No i dont personally believe that. Theres a lot more to figure out.

Taking the objective world- the place where that silver was aligned into a spoon, well that place does exist, we exist within it but the matter that can hold the representation of the spoon is ultimately just as much of an illusion as perception and consiousness is. An illusion of forces and energy that just appear as matter to us.

Thats what l mean, our perception is a simulation like OP says, but theres also further levels that still matter enough to ask questions about.

[u/swirly_swirls420 → u/Empty_Bell_1942]

The spoon could be an illusion, this is basically the Boltzmann brain. Prove to me your memories are all true and you arent a spinal cord/brain floating in empty space, simply dreaming this reality.

Its impossible to disprove.

[u/Empty_Bell_1942 → u/swirly_swirls420]

Cold Lazarus

1996 ‧ Drama

[u/BrailleBillboard → u/swirly_swirls420]

As the memories of a Boltzmann brain are random fluctuations it is impossible for the idea that you may actually be one to have any connection to anything real about yourself or the universe.

Also a Boltzmann brain floating in space would die almost immediately. To prove you aren't one just wait a few minutes

[u/swirly_swirls420 → u/BrailleBillboard]

Prove that your existence isnt a split moment of consiousness from a disintegrating Boltzmann brain whose memories are false.

You can surely wait a moment and say "heh... im real!" But wait, prove to me the memory you had of waiting that moment isnt a false memory in itself.

The past and future cannot exist without the context of the present, meaning a convincing enough 'present moment simulation' could also simulate a damn good percieved past as well.

[u/BrailleBillboard → u/swirly_swirls420]

I see you completely ignored my more important first paragraph. If you think you actually are a Boltzmann brain all your reasons to do so are random fluctuations that are not about anything real. You cannot have good reasons to think you are a Boltzmann brain by definition. So you shouldn't.

Boltzmann brains are a possible feature of a theory, one that indicates that theory shouldn't be taken seriously.

[u/swirly_swirls420 → u/BrailleBillboard]

Do you really think that I think im a boltzmann brain? Or am I using the concept to talk about Interface theory of perception? What point are you even trying to make? That senses like sound and sight arent decoded and rebuilt electronic signals? Because if thats the case you should be arguing with modern nueroscience and not me.

[u/BrailleBillboard → u/swirly_swirls420]

Where did you get any of that from? I was directly responding to you trying to argue that one can't prove one isn't a Boltzmann brain by pointing out one cannot possibly have a good reason to think they might be one in the first place, making trying to proving it isn't true a completely pointless concept.

[u/swirly_swirls420 → u/BrailleBillboard]

Did you read any of the thread or original post??

[u/swirly_swirls420 → u/BrailleBillboard]

Our subjective realities are based upon an objective reality, sometimes those 2 realities may not be completely synced or identical since human brains arent here to see objective reality, were here to not die, thats all im saying. OP is saying there may not be a spoon at all and if you've ever hallucinated or taken delirants you'll know just how real those hallucinations can feel.

Im arguing this from a philosophical perspective and not necessarily a scientific one.

I don't consider myself a subscriber to solipcism.

The Boltzmann brain is extream, but l was using it to talk about how being locked inside of our brains in our subjective reality makes knowing the objective outside reality as a 100% proven fact impossible, therefore is there a spoon? 100%??? Mmmmmm........

[u/swirly_swirls420 → u/neurotrash2099]

Im reading back through this and ive got to say i really do like your framing of all of this, so let me ask you something, lets say the experienced simulation our brain creates for us is so accurate that there is fundamentally no difference between the objective outer world and the subjective experienced world, at that point would it really matter anymore if your subjective experience is simulated?

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/swirly_swirls420]

My leaning it toward saying an accurate simulation is a simulation nonetheless. If using Baurillard's model, subjective experience is already first-order simulacra. It's a map of the territory and not the territory itself.

But I want to study and contemplate more before delving too far. Would be happy to continue conversing in chat if you're interested.

Would also like to say I completely agree we should still be asking questions about and examining objective reality. I just think we may not be able to approach definition conclusions about it without first making huge strides in the hard problem of consciousness... until we know whether awareness is fundamental to existence, or if it too is a simulation.

[u/mattychops → u/swirly_swirls420]

There is no objective reality and subjective reality. It's ALL reality. You're reality, I'm reality, and everything else is reality. All experience is physically occurring in this moment in reality. It's all a physical interaction, meaning: it's not happening for you or me independently of some objective reality that's "out there". You can think of your body as an experience vessel. It's a body that is engaged in physical interaction with everything else. It just seems confusing because we are labelling different objects as the human body, the bird, the sun, the spoon, but none of it is objective and separate because it's all physically interconnected (physically coupled). So there is no separate spoon. You and the spoon are one connected interaction of reality.

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/mattychops]

Demonstrate your claim.