axiom1985 wrote:

1. General thoughts about the feasibility of this argument. I know some regard it as highly specious or even impossible, any thoughts as to why?

axiom1985 wrote:

2. Granted that I am convinced about the immateriality of the intellect and no simulation of the brain in a computer or otherwise, naturally brings about anything like consciousness, would this be the primary objection for us not just being "in a simulation"?

No, in as far as the perceived world might still be an illusion, whether it be one stimulated by neurochemical means or directly given to our immaterial consciousness subject by God (or the Cartesian demon if such a being is possible, something I doubt). What we can prove is that we i.e. the subject who is carrying out the thought experiment is not an illusion.

axiom1985 wrote:

In feser's post here, an interesting conversation ensued whereas it was posited that it is at least possible that God could (in theory at least), attach an immaterial intellect to something like a robot. I find this curious and would like to know other's thoughts on this. Is there any objections to this other than perhaps, a moral one, i.e. God would not see it fit to attach an immaterial intellect to what amounts to a virtual "plaything"? It seems that God could have made even other animals conscious and has not done so. Why would an artifact like a computer or robot which isn't even a living substance, be anymore worthy of consciousness than they? Would attaching an immaterial intellect to a robot make it a living substance? Does the fact that computers exist as an artifact logically preclude God could even grant them an immaterial intellect? (in that it would defy the already created order of that artifacts are not conscious). This last point seems after all to be the main point scholastic philosophers object to about AI in general.

If God were to infuse a rational soul into a 'computer' it would mean the creation (albeit not ex nihilo) of a new substance. Strictly speaking a 'computer' as we know them isn't a substance either way; it's just an aggregate of particles the movements of which we attach arbitrary semantic values to (so strictly speaking computers qua computers don't exist, not in the robust categorical way water molecules, electrons and animals do).

As a bare possibility I don't see any reason why God could not do so - after all it's not that different from allowing Life to emerge out of more likely bases such as clay crystals.

axiom1985 wrote:

4. In the blog convo linked above, there seems to be some hint in the discussion that pure software or simulated consciousness (such as simulating a world or universe and its inhabitants all in a computer)  would differ from consciousness that might exist in a singular robot that is actually (extended?) in the "base" world. The former being more problematic. I'm not sure I quite grasped the philosophical issues with either scenario. If I'm not way off base here on my understanding of Aristotle and hylemorphism, perhaps it has something to do with the robot having access to the actual forms of things (things in themselves being considered form and matter in Aristotle's thought) in "base" reality that simulated software reality would not truly have access to?

This two scenarios are very different. A computer or robot cannot simulate consciousnesses for itself - the computer is not the conscious subject in Matrix style thought experiments but the being(s) plugged into it. If they mean could God have created a being from that computer could that being experience a 'Demon' scenario then technically yes just as much as any other consciousness being.

Sorry if I've misunderstood this last bit.
 

John West wrote:

Eric Schwitzgebel wrote an interesting blog post on the simulation argument a while ago.

I've reasoned along much the same lines as Schwitzgebel, were we to grant consciousness could be simulated. I find it rather interesting that atheist thinkers will deny the existence of God but come up with these fantastical materialistic accounts of creation by superior intellects. Replacing one God with many, even an infinite number of possible, unknowable, gods. It is almost akin to Hinduism in that regard. And some seem quite convinced of the plausibility of this argument.

I suppose if one truly believes consciousness comes down to just a physical cause, these kind of scenarios are unleashed a la Pandora's box. I wonder if people find it anxiety provoking, the implication of being unmoored to anything significant or "real". I suppose I have felt this way at times when I consider some of these enormous existential ponderings and being faced with the epistemic limits of our reason.