Carleas wrote
I detect discrepancies and yes, we are looping or echoing. That’s where things fall apart regarding a continued, consistent world, right there in that limited view that our existence depends on consistency. What is consistency in an eternity? Why is the fact that its not exactly consistent being ignored?
Attano: I do not get Your perception of logic not be a matter of perception. This form of argument does not start with Descartes, but with Anselm, and there is no razor sharp enough rhetoric to separate the argument other then those involving the progressive separation of faith and science.
Perception did not begin with scientific observation to displace a deductive methods of observation, while at the same time it could at a certain point be demonstrated the illogical way reality has been described by methodology.
One argument that supports this, is the initial hypotheticals underlying a qualifying by verification and test, while again, the intuitively prophetic early visions emphasize the absolutely pre- ceptual, containment of both: the interpretation of reality as an anomouliously contained, non preferential , non temporally sequential concept.
The formation of the metaphoric development of concepts contradicts the idea that a perceptual logic began at a certain stage of cognitive development, instead of looking at early logic as a formative, perceptual process based on discrimination of consciously accepted, versus denied data.
Russell’s idea fits this best in his notion of sense-data, where further logical differentiation can no longer be demonstrated.
Logic merely means keeping your language straight/consistent, nothing else. Perception is an entirely different concept and concern involved in forming the language via naming things that could be perceptually distinguished. Logic merely demands that the naming remain consistent; “A is A”.
James, we have gone through this before, and it still
remains arguable.
This is why positivism doesn’t sew up metaphysics, satisfactorily
You can argue whether 1+1=2, but it doesn’t change the linguistic fact of it.
Can you not argue that arithmetic developed from counting Things, and before we can count them,we have to abstract them from other things?
In that sense 1 may= equal -(1). That is not derivative logic. If by derivative you mean the logic of contradiction.
If a thing is equal to it’s absence, then you can see the rising of differential logic. How?
The sculptor may, work from a mold. Making a mold around the figure represented, can memorialize toward infinity, that form, because the form is made out of stuff harder, like metal, so that once the original sculpture is gone, more and more duplicates can be made. The idea is never lost, the ideal image which becomes different by virtue of modeling.
If not for that the form would be lost. That form is not merely a cognitive idea, but an idea formalized by the substantility of the idea, the formality of which, before it becomes a definitional entity, has to overcome it’s definitional use, by the erroneous conception of it merely by usage. Usage for usage is what 1=1 implies, it detaches all differentiating logical sequences which develops into figurative interpretation. This lack of linkage lead to the philosophical position of the Vienna group, and it was this absolutism reversed, which caused the revision from the despair of the Dasein, forgetting that this was basically motivated by shifts to nominal meaning theory.
I often react to arguments like this – a simulation, an evil demon, existing inside some entity’s dream, an omniscient God, determinism etc. – as [perhaps subconsciously] a way in which to take the responsibility it is said that we have to create our own lives completely out of our hands.
Clearly, if any of these speculations are true then nothing that we think or feel or say or do is really within our capacity to command.
Thus, if my life is in the toilet, it is “beyond my control”.
On the other hand, if I am on top of the world, that too is “beyond my control”.
Eventually, you have to leave the “thought experiments” behind and consider the actual “practical implications” of all this for human interactions.
After all, who can hammer me for flooding the threads with Groots, if that too is “beyond my control”? 
jerkey,
Which page are you arguing for, one we are sharing for the moment?
What I mean is, even in principle it is impossible to detect the kinds of discrepancies that can be introduced in us if we are simulated. Just as the program calculating 2+2 can’t perceive that its memory has been changed between operations, we could not in principle perceive what the Simulators do to our simulation. Our perception is contained within the simulation, it does not extent to directly perceiving the medium on which the simulation runs.
As Bostrom points out in his paper, this depends on there being some form of mind-brain identity, so there’s no transcendent soul the exists independent of our the simulation. We are the simulation, and if it’s stopped, dissected, altered, erased, so are we.
Just as a simple and blatant example:
Imagine if you consistently placed two pennies into an empty jar, then added two more. Immediately afterward, you count the number of pennies in the jar. And there are only 3.
Something like that should tell you that something is wrong. Something isn’t “adding up”, literally.
If 2+2 isn’t going to equal 4, then a great many arithmetic issues would no longer add up. The entire field of mathematics is interconnected such that if you change any one thing (such as 2+2=3), everything is affected and thusly detected.
Logic supersedes all such issues IF the people can observe enough interconnected events and can remain logically minded. If the people involved are never taught logic or never given enough experience, of course they can be fooled; “Another one born every minute”.
When the masses are awake and aware, their manipulators/programmers are far more confined. The most recent “hat-trick” is to convince them that they are highly intelligent and aware and logic is flawed and irrelevant, so that they don’t feel the need to more closely examine the very many things that simply don’t add up (Presidential candidates, Unemployment figures, Terrorism issues, Climate issues, Disease issues,…).
JSS wrote
Are you really reducing this to politics?
No. I am reducing it to logic so as to detect the deception/simulation. And what is deception if not politics.
Your logic is their logic? They’re synonymous? Where is the divergence? Where are the fruits and veggies? 
Everybody needs vitamins and minerals that can only be found in the most wholesome food groups…or puddings says Martha Stewart.
There is no “their logic” or “my logic”. Logic is the consistency of the language. It doesn’t matter who is being consistent.
And even though all kinds of ingredients are needed for a great variety of life, this puzzle merely needs bone and soup.
There is the faulty continuum in which you currently reside and feed the ridiculousness or there’s beyond this madhouse which I choose to pursue. You are too involved in your current circumstance and want to remain clueless, by all means do so. You’ve already admitted that your thoughts are not your own which I get now. Ironic games and such.
Your logic is sub par I dare say Mr. Carl man.
The logic flow works like this:
If consistent logic is true, then we may live in a simulation, or maybe not.
but if inconsistent logic is true or apparent, then we definitely live in a simulation, because only through a simulation could inconsistent logic be true or apparent.
so the existence of inconsistent logic proves it is a simulation.
James is happy with his/their logic. There are no paradoxes, right James? Everything is verifiably consistent with amorous precision.
But you’re just relying on the Simulators being sloppy. Any procedure that watches a logical procedure to verify that it is being carried out faithfully can also be manipulated. Why would it bother us if putting in two coins and two coins left us with three coins? Because we have a process running in our heads that’s keeping count. If all the processes were manipulated as needed to arrive at the wrong conclusion, we would arrive at that conclusion, and be incapable of detecting anything wrong with it.
To put it another way, the process of “detecting” is itself being simulated, and the Simulators can intervene in it to produce whatever output they want.
This is basically to say that we can’t be simulated because it’s impossible to simulate a mind. Which is a fair and legitimate response, and one that will probably be disconfirmed (to the extent a statement about other minds can be) within the next few decades.
We may or not, who is to say, I am for sure not going to be able to answer that.