Two New Doubts about Simulation Arguments

Abstract

ABSTRACT Various theorists contend that we might live in a computer simulation. David Chalmers, in turn, argues that the simulation hypothesis is a metaphysical hypothesis about the nature of our reality, rather than a sceptical scenario. We use recent work on consciousness to motivate new doubts about both sets of arguments. First, we argue that if either panpsychism or panqualityism is true, then the only way to live in a simulation might be as brains-in-vats, in which case it is unlikely that we live in a simulation. We then argue that, if panpsychism or panqualityism is true, viable simulation hypotheses are substantially sceptical scenarios. We conclude that the nature of consciousness has wide-ranging implications for simulation arguments.