>Software developers (or worse, tech entrepreneurs) often assume they have something to add to the discussion of simulationism just because computation is the simulation substrate du jour in Bostrom's work. But the philosophical discussion goes back directly to Descartes and indirectly even further. It's broad, complex, and not something a dilettante can just jump into after a teenage diet of scifi.
So what? People should stop thinking for themselves and relegate it to the pros, lest they repeat informally something already investigated and rejected?
One could also point out how openness and encouragement of layman participation and collaboration with field outsiders have also been discussed extensively, and point people to read the relevant papers/books instead of your comment...
I’m sympathetic to David Stove’s idea that the main value of academic philosophy is in saving ordinary (productive) people from the trouble of having to do philosophy themselves.
And yet without thinking by themselves ordinary people won't be able to understand that philosophy, making it almost worthless given the underlying assumption that neglects the inherent value of philosophy. This can be well demonstrated by... Software engineers informally having viewpoints or ideas that were already refuted :)
Stop thinking ourselves? No, but just humbly consider that that flash of insight you may have just had might have been considered, named, and much more eloquently stated hundreds of years ago.
Writing your ideas onto a personal blog says nothing about a persons lack of humility nor should it imply anything about the seriousness to which the author takes what they have written as being without precedent.
This thread would have people stop writing things on the Internet altogether, unless they have approached it the way one approaches writing an academic paper for peer review.
OK, then what? Should people also not dance in public because others dance better and professionally?
There's a value in writing down that flash of insight, even if it "have been considered, named, and much more eloquently stated hundreds of years ago".
For one, nobody can be familiar with all that "has been considered, named, and much more eloquently stated hundreds of years ago". Especially if it's not their main domain or main hobby.
Second, an amateur stumbling with his insights might also come at an interesting insight once in a while.
Third, it doesn't preclude anyone from going to the "real" experts. If anything, by discussing such things, it makes it more possible.
The only problem would be if said amateur thought he had the answers and that all the experts or previous discussion were wrong (like people who claim they have invented the perpetual motion machine, etc).
> People should stop thinking for themselves and relegate it to the pros, lest they repeat informally something already investigated and rejected?
I didn't say anything about thinking. But yes, maybe many programmers (and celebrities and entrepreneurs - also called out by the article itself) should think more and publicly speak less.
Here’s something I’m curious about, hopefully without coming across as too negative: what is the purpose of philosophical work such as Bostrom’s?
As an argument it may or may not be convincing, but it’s not obviously actionable. It’s hard to see how it could be tested.
You seem to be saying that amateur philosophers shouldn’t jump in with their own naive takes on it, as they don’t have the required educational background. I can certainly believe that, but it takes away another avenue by which we non-philosophers can potentially engage with the work.
If there has been any notable followup or rebuttal, it hasn’t made nearly as much of an impact in the public consciousness (and of course the simulation argument is a pretty niche thing in the first place).
How does, or should, this simulation argument affect the average person? How might it affect us in future? What does it change?
> what is the purpose of philosophical work such as Bostrom’s?
This is a good question. This paper is popular well in disproportion to its impact, because it's a sexy scifi topic. I don't know Bostrom but I suspect it's popular far in disproportion to his desires also - it's just one small piece of his work on superintelligence, which is in turn only one part of his work on measuring existential risk.
The paper, it should be noted, is not an argument we are living in a simulation (it's often taken as one, but the simulation hypothesis predates Bostrom, the 20th century, etc.). Rather, it's an argument that there is a trilemma of which two options are material, and potentially even testable - so in a sense, it does allow the simulation hypothesis to be tested, if you buy his trilemma and reject the other options. (Based again on his other work, I suspect Bostrom may personally believe #1 - I personally am suspicious of both the validity of the trilemma and independently suspect #2.)
So this plays the kind of role in philosophy that a discovery of some unique way to synthesize a chemical we already have plenty of ways to synthesize in chemistry. It's a workaday paper - interesting if you are interested in the field, but of no great impact to most people's lives.
The result is that there's also not a lot of great ways to engage with the paper, in the same way it's difficult to engage with a refinement of the equivalence between inertial and gravitation mass.
If you want to engage with the simulation hypothesis and metaphysical realism more broadly, I would begin with Putnam's Reason, Truth and History. The philosophical work around the simulation hypothesis is maybe best thought of not as an attempt to actually answer it conclusively, but as particular lens on the relationship between reality, self-perception, and sense-perception. Clarifying those relationships is of immense use to the average person.
So what? People should stop thinking for themselves and relegate it to the pros, lest they repeat informally something already investigated and rejected?
One could also point out how openness and encouragement of layman participation and collaboration with field outsiders have also been discussed extensively, and point people to read the relevant papers/books instead of your comment...