On the importance of simulation theory.
Ken Easlon
paradigm to the endeavor of computerizing the human mind.
In any of life's games, including the building and programming of
computers, we rely on common sense. Common sense is good, it
helps us to manipulate the physical world and improve the quality
of life.
However, common sense is not so good when it comes to looking at
the human mind, particularly the interface between mind and
matter. The commonsense view of mind and matter has a lot of
blind spots which makes it damn hard to think about building a
conscious computer.
One approach to getting a better view of commonsense blind spots
is the simulation paradigm. Pretend there is no physical world,
rather a computer-produced virtual world which produces the
commonsense illusion of a physical world.
Let's posit that one of the main functional requirements of the
simulator is to produce the illusion of physical reality. To
maintain this illusion, the simulator grants us a certain amount
of power (or appearance of power) to control the course of the
simulation, to shape the "world". It allows us to stack bricks
and create a sheltered environment, and it allows us to grow
silicon crystals and build programmable computers.
A key point here is that the simulator doesn't have to actually
produce a brick house, quark by quark, or even brick by brick.
It's functional requirement is to simply produce interactive
experience consistent with the "existence" of a brick house.
If we choose to take a close look at any brick in the structure,
the simulator simply calls up the brick-close-up routine and
generates the experience of closely examining a brick.
If we choose (and have access to the resources), we can take a
specimen from a brick and throw it into a particle accelerator
and see that it is indeed made of quarks (and such).
Common sense would then use mental induction to create a
belief that there is a whole house (or a whole universe)
made of quarks.
The simulation paradigm would simply posit that there is a
simulator module which produces the experience of brick
examination-analysis.
Both points of view are simply metaphysical explanations.
Scientific common sense says there's a big universe out
there with jillions and jillions of quarks.
The simulation paradigm says there's a simulator out there
with modules which produce interactive experience, and
"mental" modules which induce the commonsense illusion of a
complex universe.
The difference in the two points of view is important when it
comes to understanding the human mind with sufficient detail to
program it into a computer.
The commonsense view would have us build a relatively simple
mind in an incredibly complex environment.
The simulation paradigm would have us build a mind which
indulges in illusions of complexity, in a relatively simple
environment.
Both points of view have their place in the overall scheme of
things. We can use the simulation paradigm to get a better
understanding of the mind-matter relationship, to generate a
sound theory to guide the construction of a conscious computer.
With theory firmly in mind, we can then use scientific common
sense to build the damn thing.
--
Ken Easlon
k...@holonet.net