Mind-body dualism almost certainly isn't true, but it could be in a simulation

Are mind and body two different things, or one thing? Descartes, along with Eastern religions that view consciousness as immaterial, argue that mind and body belong to different realms, nonphysical and physical.

A big problem with this view, of course, is that it's obvious that mind and body are intimately connected. I think, "Type I think," and voila, that's what happens. If mind and body are different, how could an immaterial mind control the physical fingers that tap out letters on my keyboard?

And how is it that ingesting coffee, LSD, alcohol, or numerous other substances affects the mind, if the mind is immaterial? This is why dualism -- the notion that mind and body are different -- is rejected by almost all modern scientists. 

In David Chalmers' new book, "Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, he addresses the mind-body problem in a chapter called "How do mind and body interact in a virtual world?" He says:

These days, Cartesian dualism is widely rejected. Most people think that our behavior is produced entirely by physical processes in the brain, and many think that the idea of interaction between physical and nonphysical processes makes no sense.

Agreed. But I enjoyed how Chalmers analyzed the two main types of simulations, pure and impure, to cast light on how dualism fares in a simulated reality.

As you can read below, in a pure simulation the mind of a being/person is simulated along with the physics that controls the simulated world. In other words, both mind and body, along with everything else in that world, is made of digital bits created by the simulation's designer.

This leaves no room for dualism, in the same way there's no room for dualism in our physical world, where mind almost certainly is the brain in action, and the brain is physical, like everything else.

But in an impure simulation, mind can be one thing, and body can be something else. This is the case with virtual reality headsets, which exist now. The virtual reality is a digital simulation, while the mind of the person wearing the headset is part of the everyday world. Hence, dualism.

Not a supernatural sort of dualism, but a dualism all the same. This allows Chalmers to say that dualism is indeed possible in an impure simulation. The passages below are from the end of the chapter, so they assume that the reader has been exposed to preceding arguments.

So if what follows seems confusing, don't be surprised. It's sort of confusing to me also, and I've read the entire chapter. 

The arguments in this chapter can help us think clearly about the simulation hypothesis. We saw in chapter 2 that the hypothesis can be split into the pure simulation hypothesis, in which our cognitive system is part of the simulation, and the impure simulation hypothesis, in which it's not.

The traditional brain-in-a-vat scenario is an impure simulation, as is the situation in The Matrix. In this chapter we've mainly been focusing on impure simulations, in which the cognitive system and the physics of the virtual world are distinct.

If I accept the impure simulation hypothesis, I should accept the Cartesian dualist hypothesis that my cognitive system is nonphysical and interacting with physical systems. My mind is outside the physical space of my virtual world, and it interacts with my body, which is inside that space. 

My physical world derives entirely from bits in a computer, but my mind is tied to the brain in a vat, which need not derive from bits at all.

Earlier, I argued that the simulation hypothesis leads to the it-from-bit creation hypothesis. Now we see that the impure simulation hypothesis leads to the Cartesian it-from-bit creation hypothesis: Physical systems derive from computational processes, put in place by a creator, and our cognitive systems are distinct from, and interact with, these physical systems.

In effect, the impure simulation idea is akin to combining the it-from-bit creation idea about the physical world with Cartesian dualism about the mind. By contrast, the pure simulation hypothesis leads to the non-Cartesian it-from-bit creation hypothesis. Our cognitive systems derive from physical systems, which derive from computations, which are themselves created.

I'm not suggesting that the impure simulation hypothesis is especially plausible. If you take the simulation hypothesis seriously because of the statistical argument that simulations will be common, this reasoning tends to support the pure simulation hypothesis. It will be easier to create pure simulations (just set up the simulated physics of a world and watch it go), and much harder to create impure simulations (in which you'll need separate minds to interact with the simulation).

If you need a biological brain for every impure simulation, this poses a hurdle that may limit the supply of impure simulations. As long as pure simulations can also support minds like ours, statistical reasoning suggests that it's more probable that we're in a pure simulation than an impure one.

Furthermore, insofar as we have reasonable evidence that physics forms a closed network in our world, this is evidence against the Cartesian hypothesis and against the impure simulation hypothesis, or at least against versions of these hypotheses in which the mind makes a difference in the physical world.

Still, simulation reasoning may give us reason to take Cartesian dualism more seriously than before. Cartesian dualism initially seems supernatural -- inconsistent with a naturalistic view of the world. Simulation reasoning shows us how Cartesian dualism might be entirely naturalistic, deriving from natural processes in an outer world.

Just as simulation reasoning gives us a naturalistic version of theism, it also gives us a naturalistic version of Cartesian dualism. It also helps us to overcome Princess Elisabeth's objection that a nonphysical system could not in principle interact with a physical system. The impure simulation hypothesis provides us with a model of how this interaction might work.

Is this simulation-based Cartesian dualism consistent with our scientific knowledge of the world? Where physics in concerned, the idea that physics forms a closed network is an attractive hypothesis, but it's certainly not demonstrated. Current physics suggests that there may be forces not yet discovered. It would be surprising to learn that outer-world processes occasionally affected inner-world physics inside computation-based human bodies, but it wouldn't be inconsistent with our evidence.

Where neuroscience is concerned, we know we have highly sophisticated brain processes that correlate closely with perception, thought, and action. There are versions of the impure simulation hypothesis that are consistent with all this. One somewhat extravagant version is the duplicate-brain hypothesis with a nonvirtual brain in the outer world duplicating and overriding the virtual brain in the inner world. 

Less extravagant is a version in which a nonvirtual brain is connected to a semi-autonomous virtual brain, affecting it and controlling its behavior at key junctures. It's true that we have little in the way of direct evidence for this hypothesis, but we also have little evidence against it.

The impure simulation hypothesis suggests that Cartesian dualism is at least consistent with our scientific knowledge of the world. I'm not arguing that the impure simulation hypothesis is true, so I haven't provided an argument that Cartesian dualism is true. Still, simulation reasoning shows us a way in which Cartesian dualism could be true -- which is interesting in itself.

Comments

[Vinny]

Light / Energy created matter, no dualism there, all the people , their minds , their voices , videos are present in 4g network stream plus on internet servers for posterity. There is no body mind dualism in google servers or 4g network. This busts all philosophy of Christian fools. These fools are now at mercy of science and technology. One google server has more memory and intelligence than all Christian fools born since beginning of time. These Christian jokers invented false language to enslave mankind. Now they are slaves of technology. These Christian jokers will remain slaves till end of time.

[Appreciative Reader]

Interesting, when you view it from the POV of the simulatees, that is to say, *us*.

Here's a very important qualification that, it appears to me, a discussion along these lines must allow for. And it hasn't been spelled out here, although I guess Chalmers may have said it elsewhere.

When you say "mind", it is important to clearly spell out which mind. If one is to conflate minds creataed/formed within the simulation, and minds that have come in from without, then we'll end up confusing the issue hopelessly.

If we're talking about an "impure" simulation, then clearly they'll be two categories of minds at play here: on one hand, the minds of the people from outside who have logged in into the simulation (into our universe); and on the other hand, the apparent-minds of those that haven't, that is to say the NPCs.

In as much the minds of people who have logged in, absolutely, we'll have duality. However, when it comes to the NPCs, there is no such duality. (And there's sure to be NPCs. Maybe some/many of us humans; but even if we assume all humans are avatars, players, even then that still leaves animals, including the more intelligent ones. It cannot possibly be that all living beings, or even that all 'higher' living beings, are avatars; so that we must of necessity have *some* NPCs, and more likely *many* NPCs.)

----------

Hah, in a way this channels what the Upanishads say almost to a T. The whole many realms thing, the whole avatars thing (in the original sense of that word), everything. Including, even, the particular theodical argument that Advaita posits --- far far more successfully than the gibbering idiocy that Christian theology attempts, so that the only reason why one doesn't embrace the former is the total absence of compelling evidence, which means that we treat it as no more than a (more or less) internally consistent hypothesis, and a very extravagant one at that.

[Spence Tepper]

"Furthermore, insofar as we have reasonable evidence that physics forms a closed network in our world, this is evidence against the Cartesian hypothesis.."

There is zero evidence that physics is a closed network and quite a large body of evidence to the opposite. We are discovering new laws of physics all the time, and some of them only active at certain scale, and even only at certain times of history, and others like string theory, active across separate dimensions, while others, like gravity, only where Matter is prevalent.

Chalmers then acknowledges this himself...

"Where physics in concerned, the idea that physics forms a closed network is an attractive hypothesis, but it's certainly not demonstrated. Current physics suggests that there may be forces not yet discovered. It would be surprising to learn that outer-world processes occasionally affected inner-world physics inside computation-based human bodies, but it wouldn't be inconsistent with our evidence."

The argument for a separate outer and inner world is a dualistic idea based on the premise that the outer world is real and the inner world is a projection based on it.

But an entirely different schema is equally valid (in the world of conjecture you can have multiple views). And that is not that the creation is a simulation from some other reality, nor that the mind is based upon and a product of the brain, but that it is a projection into a hard - er reality from a more fluid simulation of ideas.

A plane of knowledge that underlies the projection. Like DNA projecting life.

And what underlies that realm of Maya?

The realm of "nothing" that is actually the basis of everything. The empty space around which all reality forms itself.

See it to believe it.

[Ron E.]

I don’t know if Chalmers uses any evidence for the world being a simulation or whether he is using his brilliance as a philosopher of mind and language to introduce an interesting thought experiment. Either way, in my simplicity, I do rather think that ‘mind’ is an issue that has often been philosophised into a place of mystery and ambiguity. Anyway, ‘mind’ is central to this concept.

The evidence that mind proceeds from the brain is logical, experiential and well presented by modern neuroscience. It is also a common feature in some contemplative disciplines such as Chan (Zen). I have just read a good summation of the mind by Janet Jiryu Abels in her book ‘Making Zen Your Own’, in which she states: - “Identity – the sense of a me – is created by the ego-mind, which from early childhood stitches together all the information that it receives from the outside about this ‘me’ and then continues, year after year, to grow a self, an ego, out of this very limited information.”

I also understand ‘mind’ as being information, no mystery, no secret, just a collection of information that emerges through the brain’s mental processes as memory and thought. In this light, mind is a constant stream of thoughts, thoughts that continually arise - ostensibly to navigate through life – though more often than not, mental verbiage.

Rather than a computer-generated virtual universe, I am still rather inclined toward the inflation model of the universe that some physicists suggest. It presents energy as being the original cause of the universe. Such energy being actually nothing, always existed, having no beginning or ending. From this nothing, this emptiness, all matter apparently happens.

[Uchit]

There is one simulation you may all be aware of, and that is the RSSB fake deceptive sumulation for the blind and desperate sheep. In this simulation you have an urge to find a perfect guru ( seeds usually planted in your subconscious, by your parents, manipulated santmat info and fake gurus). This guru has the secret of the so called 5 secret names (which we all know are satanic names) who make you believe that he is the saviour, and will take you to a promise land after death. Many foolish sangat have taken the bait and become trapped in this game and keep losing it, only to be thrown back into the reincarnation trap for eons as a forfeit. Many narsassists have also come into RSSB to inflate their ego and gain privileges to feel special enough to bully and control the blind sheep who are not worthy of anything. Stop falling for BENT babas like gurinder singh dhillon , the evil villain, and exit this nasty simulation and live your own life. Question everything.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
To the NPC this world is all there is.
To the gamer, this world is one of many.

She may become good friends with the NPCs she meets, and most certainly they are often essential to helping her navigate the game. And when they are opponents, they can perform ridiculously better than any human player.

But she may prefer to join a guild of other gamers. For a gamer they are easy to spot. For the NPC they have no means to tell. Their whole existence is the game itself.

[Dungeness]

@ Spence or simulation pros: [ But she may prefer to join a guild of other gamers.
For a gamer they are easy to spot. For the NPC they have no means to tell.
Their whole existence is the game itself. ]

Hm, do we then assume a decidedly fanatical anti-theist
(or religious zealot) is likely NPC and ignorable...
The poor blighter is only there as a simulation prop rather
than a proper chap after all.

Or will doing so condemn the haughty "prop abuser" to
another simulation game...

--------
“Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle.”
― Lewis Carroll , Alice in Wonderland

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hi AR
To the NPC this world is all there is.
To the gamer, this world is one of many.

She may become good friends with the NPCs she meets, and most certainly they are often essential to helping her navigate the game. And when they are opponents, they can perform ridiculously better than any human player.

But she may prefer to join a guild of other gamers. For a gamer they are easy to spot. For the NPC they have no means to tell. Their whole existence is the game itself."

(Posted by: Spence Tepper | February 20, 2022 at 08:41 PM)

------------------

Hello, Spence.

I've taken the liberty of quoting all of your short comment, in order to highlight it, because it beautifully takes the argument/scenario forward.

Absolutely, that's exactly what would be likely to follow in an imperfect simulation, and following what I'd said myself. You've fleshed out the plotline beautifully there!

And you know what? I'd said earlier that Upanishadic theology captures this perfectly. Well, it occurs to me, now, that an RSSB-type cosmology also would fit in well enough. The marked souls, the specific discipline and markers for getting back home (kind of like the music they play in the background in Christopher Nolan's Inception? ), which in this case would be inner sound and light, as well as the "inner master". All of that might be seen to make perfect sense, and quite literally too, in that scenario.

----------

No doubt you're only discussing this lightly, as I had been doing, basically having fun with some fun speculation, but still:

All of this is just one possible scenario within the imperfect-simulation idea: no doubt we can think up very many such scenarios, that are nothing like RSSB theology. And in any case the whole simulation idea is simply wild speculation, having fun in a sci-fi kind of way, and cannot and must not be seen as actually speaking to reality --- for the simple reason that it is all unevidenced.

Christian theodicy is riddled with internal inconsistencies, and so can be rejected on thoe grounds. This simulation business is simply a play on the far older Advaitic schema; and while, and like I'd said, Advaidic theodicy is more sophisticated than its Christian counterpart, and while it is (more or less) internally consistent, but where it is sorely lacking is in evidence. Anyone can, with some effort, make up a nice well-rounded story; merely the fact that it's well-rounded doesn't make a story true. Only evidence would do that.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Hm, do we then assume a decidedly fanatical anti-theist
(or religious zealot) is likely NPC and ignorable..."

That makes no sense at all, Dungeness, not even within that specific scenario within that particular hypothetical.

OK, let's assume the imperfect simulation scenario, where you have some players logging in as avatars, and the rest NPCs. I guess the game will jack everyone out at some point, but let's further asssume that those who've gotten "lost" in the game have one way out, early on and without waiting for the game itself to jack everyone out, by following some sound light or practice or something (like in Inception).

Why on earth, in that scenario, would a "decidedly fanatical anti-theist" be any more likely to be an NPC than a player? If one is a player one is a player, even if it so happens that within the game one happens to have arrived at an anti-theistic stance. And if one is an NPC then one remains an NPC, even if one happens to have become a "decidedly fanatically" religious theist. The one has nothing at all to do with the other, not even slightly, as far as I can see.

[Dungeness]

@ AR : [ That makes no sense at all, Dungeness, not even within that specific scenario within that particular hypothetical... And if one is an NPC then one remains an NPC, even if one happens to have become a "decidedly fanatically" religious theist. ]

Oh dear, I'm afraid you're right. I've assumed an "Avatar" was playing a
scenario for fun only and with his special level of discernment could play
safely without out getting "lost" in the game. In other words, not lose
perspective and go fanatically anti- or pro-theistic. I further assumed an
NPC, for whom the "game was everything" would be totally malleable in
his given role on the the other hand.

So, in an ha-ha attempt, I speculated that an elite Avatar might get in
trouble by treating a lowly game-bound NPC as a mere prop and incur
a penalty. The upshot might be having to re-play the game to chasten
his performative lapse... kinda like an RSSB sinner turned away at the
"third eye" for a smudge mark on the scroll. Forgive me. I shall go
and... well, try for better comedy.

[spence tepper]

Hi dungeness
You wrote:
"Hm, do we then assume a decidedly fanatical anti-theist
(or religious zealot) is likely NPC and ignorable...
The poor blighter is only there as a simulation prop rather
than a proper chap after all.

"Or will doing so condemn the haughty "prop abuser" to
another simulation game..."

Yes, it's part of gaming. It's called respawn. Happens all the time.
No one likes it.
Jesus called it resurrection, Hindus called it reincarnation. But real gamers know it's just Respawn.
Yes, we are respawned all the time, sometimes several times an hour, if life gets really challenging.