Darryl Reeves

Symbolic Systems 205

Commentary on Bostrom’s “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”

As I was reading Bostrom’s paper “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” I began the paper thinking about what if everything that we experience and see around us is in fact part of some elaborate simulation running on super computers built by our descendants. (First of all, these “posthuman” people would not be our descendants if we are in fact in a simulation, they would basically be some advanced generation of humans that is simply using us as part of a gigantic experiment). I saw the second matrix and the idea that everything around consists of a computer program was intriguing. I thought that this paper might re-ignite my interest in the topic of human existence as a simple simulation. But then reality set in. I remembered that after seeing the second installment of the matrix, I did not spend more than a night thinking about this simulation question. The reality of my own life and the world that I live in (real or simulated) set back into my mind.

As a Symbolic Systems major, I am required to have a bit of knowledge of the discipline of Philosophy. In fact, there is some philosophy that I really like (a class that I took on political philosophy last year was one of my favorite classes at Stanford). But the majority of philosophy that I have encountered has left me asking the question, “so what?” Perhaps it is a lack of intellectual curiosity but I enjoy learning and knowledge so that cannot be the problem. For once, I have a chance to express my frustration regarding much of the philosophy that I have encountered because doing this within a Philosophy course was never an option. The crux of my problem with this paper (which is many times the crux of my problem with subjects such as Philosophy of Mind) is that whether or not we are in a simulation has no bearing on the course of my or anyone else’s life. If the simulations are as detailed as Bostrom makes them out to be (although I have issues with his assumptions as well) and there is no way out, we really get no benefit from knowing the answer to the question that the title of his paper poses. I will feel pain, remorse, pleasure, and desire whether or not I live in a simulation. I will grow old, experience the joys of friendship and love, and graduate from Stanford whether or not I live in a simulation. So the answer to his question is a fun mental exercise but at the end of the day it will change nothing about how I choose to live my life.

Another problem that I have with this paper and philosophy in general is the concept of a “thought experiment,” which is often employed in philosophy arguments. He uses the concept of substrate-independence as one of his assumptions after admitting that while it is a common assumption in philosophy of mind, it is controversial. I am not convinced that consciousness can be experienced outside of carbon-based biological systems. He can use this as one of his assumptions but he gives little reason for us to believe this. Bostrom also assumes that “technological development will make it possible to convert planets and other astronomical resources into enormously powerful computers” (p. 3). Why should we believe this? Because Bostrom is able to think this idea in his mind? I need more justification than this. Therefore, I cannot accept that these types of computers or any “super computer” will definitely be capable of simulating every intricate detail of human history. It is possible but all possibilities do not become realities.

I am sure that my dismissive stance towards many philosophical arguments is nothing new. I am pretty certain that others have argued against philosophical arguments in this way and philosophers have responded adequately and presented an argument about why the branches of Philosophy that I am attacking do matter. Their arguments are probably better thought out and better articulated than what I have offered here but fortunately for me, I do not desire acceptance within the philosophical community. This is a commentary on Bostrom’s paper and some issues that I have with Philosophy and beyond expressing my thoughts in a coherent and insightful manner nothing else is required of me.