RE: If We're in a Simulation, Could Studying Morality and A.I. Improve Your Life?
So what makes humans think this way? Is it paired with rising sentience (a necessary component to drive intelligence evolution) or is it an evolutionary accident?
If it's an accident, then you have a really good point. If it's paired with rising sentience, then it's very reasonable to believe that any beings sufficiently advanced would begin developing simulations. At that point, probability takes over... if any beings are running simulations, there is much higher probability that we are in one of the countless simulations than there is that we are outside of it. Even with quantum computing, how many simulations can be run in parallel? I don't know the limits to that.
We don't have enough data-points on sentient species to know whether this human way of thinking drives sentience or is an evolutionary accident.
Yes gotcha.
I very much believe that it is what you call an "evolutionary accident". I wouldn’t probably call it accident, but rather like one of the possible evolutionary branches of life forms if you know what i mean. (The outcome though regardless of the definition is still the same).
What would make you think that our sentience is actually rising that much? Sure we have plenty of new technology, we have bested (most probably) all of the other life forms on Earth, but the vast majority of the world still lives in "medieval ages". From my perspective humanity is still in its prenatal stage (and will probably destroy itself before it ever manages to climb out from that stage). Thus said thinking that from the perspective of Truth/Reality we can’t possibly know whether we have even matched the "average sentience" of all the living species, let alone proclaim that we have reached a state worthy of recognition, or possibly a state that "all sentient beings are bound to seek at one point". Maybe we are well below average of "sentience" and that is why we are reaching those conclusions?
Overall you added some great points. But then again the argumentation of the "rising sentience" you have shared is still based on a premise that this is the only way where life forms can lead (based on our very limited understanding of the world a life itself). We have no idea how other life forms think or act. All we can do is to assume that life forms based on CO2 (did I say it right?:D No chemist here:D) will always do what humans incline to do. As you very well pointed out
We can only assume and I was raised in a philosophical communities that were sceptic in its nature.
Very good points. I wasn't trying to make assumptions about our relative sentience, only to point out the key assumptions that the argument takes for granted.
I don't think that we're in a simulation, but whether certain modes of thought are inherent or accidental definitely influences the probabilities.
Since we have so few data points, we can't possibly conjecture. And Elon musk didn't even calculate the actual path of a space roadster correctly. Why would we credit his simulation probabilities?
Human or non-human, if we know humans would do it, and we assume humans survive long enough to do it... stands to reason there’s a good chance they would.
But can we actually do it? I think it would require quantum computing, at the least, and it's one of the least interesting simulations to utilize the quantum computers.