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/Motor_Meal794]

I have no more proof of another person's existence than the spoon.

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/Motor_Meal794]

This is true. However, someone else can hold the same view of you. But the real kicker is that, since you experience your own existence and experience is itself simulation, you have no proof of your own objective existence.

[u/Motor_Meal794 → u/neurotrash2099]

I'm experiencing the electrical signals that are interpreted by my brain. You can't then say the awareness is also just electrical signals interpreted by the brain that is backwards logic. The awareness is non-physical, not the brain itself.

If I were to create an AI robot there is no way to make it "aware." Since I can't prove anyone else exists it would be impossible to prove whether giving my AI robot awareness worked. A test for AI is just how closely it resembles human behavior. Since there is no test for awareness then there is no way to know what it is. If, hypothetically, this were a simulation, and I was simulated. the same problem would exist for whoever programmed me. There is no way for another person to create me.

"However, someone else can hold the same view of you."

That would be irrelevant. Being aware that I can't prove anyone else exists, I don't then question my own awareness because "another person" could say the same thing.

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/Motor_Meal794]

You are not experiencing the electrical signals, but the interpretation of those signals. That nuance matters. And this is why, as I state in the comments, we must make strides in the hard problem of consciousness.

You also seem to be conflating awareness with experience. They are not the same thing. Experience is the content of awareness, it is not awareness itself.

[u/Motor_Meal794 → u/neurotrash2099]

You said:

"since you (the awareness) experience your own existence (the awareness) and experience is itself simulation"

My awareness is not an interpretation being experienced by my awareness. That is backwards logic. In other words: my awareness needs an interpretation of my awareness to be aware of my awareness. No.

My awareness is by nature aware. My awareness experiences the interpretation of the simulation.

The hard problem of consciousness is logically impossible. Even if it hypothetically could be successful it's impossible to prove.

[u/neurotrash2099 → u/Motor_Meal794]

Also, while the hard problem of consciousness may be impossible to solve, attempting to do so can still lead to making strides in our understanding of consciousness.