Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed the simulation argument, which suggests that if a civilization becomes capable of creating conscious simulations, it could generate so many simulated beings that a randomly chosen conscious entity would almost certainly be in a simulation.
In the philosophy of mind, the China brain thought experiment (also known as the Chinese Nation or Chinese Gym) considers what would happen if the entire population of China were asked to simulate the action of one neuron in the brain, using telephones or walkie-talkies to simulate the axons and dendrites that connect neurons.
The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism, [4] which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information-processing system operating on formal symbols, and that simulation of a given mental state is sufficient for its presence.
Direct realism, also known as naïve realism, argues we perceive the world directly. In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences; [1] [2] out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself ...
Most concepts invoking a simulated reality relate to some form of computer simulation, whether through the creation of a virtual reality that creates appearance of being in a real world, or a theoretical process like mind uploading, in which a mind could be uploaded into a computer
An argument map with 'modus ponens' in the inference box. An inference can be the target of an objection. Such inference objections highlight invalid or weak inferences. [12] [13] In the diagram below, B is the premise, A is the conclusion, and C is an objection to the inference from A to B. Argument map of an inference objection.
An inference objection is an objection to an argument based not on any of its stated premises, but rather on the relationship between a premise (or set of premises) and main contention. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] For a given simple argument, if the assumption is made that its premises are correct, fault may be found in the progression from these to the ...
The most common objection to naïve Coherentism is that it relies on the idea that circular justification is acceptable. In this view, P ultimately supports P, begging the question . Coherentists reply that it is not just P that is supporting P, but P along with the totality of the other statements in the whole system of belief.