|
 Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
 The Simulated Universe  4
#26967207 - 10/03/20 09:14 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I've listened to this a number of times, all 1.5 hours of it.
I wouldn't mind hearing what others think of it:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tom-campbell-simulated-realities-possible-futures-obes/id1478684822?i=1000473583697
The blurb for it: "Join Riz for a lively conversation with Tom Campbell author of My Big TOE, and one of the earlier proponents of simulation theory. Tom's work is unique because not only is he a physicist by training, but he brings experience with different aspects of consciousness, including OBE's, Remote Viewing, and is one of the few to provide a Theory of Everything (TOE) that really covers, well, everything! The discussion includes Tom's background, mysteries of physics, entering multiple virtual realities, and the status of his experiments to prove that we are living in a simulated world. Learn more at cusac.org and mybigtoe.com."
Why I think it is interesting is because it helps explain personal experiences that I cannot otherwise figure out. Why do we feel, see and experience a different realm of existence when we're tripping balls? What are these other beings/entities that appear in our altered states of consciousness?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26967345 - 10/03/20 10:23 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I cannot imagine how his big TOE explains your personal experience through psychedelic realms, but if it makes you happy - great!
It should not matter what others believe, if it helps you find your way great! There are Mormons and Muslims and Mahayanins all finding their way without his big TOE, but that is fine too.
Don't blame me if it falls into a category that is not exact science. It really is of no consequence, when you believe you believe within your own framework.
--------------------
 _  š§ _ 
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Ok redgreenvines.
You should listen to it first before commenting though my friend.
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk] 2
#26967380 - 10/03/20 10:44 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Back again for a quick comment... @redgreenvines, I'm guess that with your having studied neurophysiology that you are a materialist? That you believe consciousness arises out of neurons and brains?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26967912 - 10/03/20 04:47 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you guessed about 1/10000000 th of it
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
 emcee
Stranger
Registered: 08/21/20
Posts: 9
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
|
|
OMG Tom is the best! Thanks for sharing love love love it!
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,368
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: emcee]
#26970104 - 10/05/20 03:39 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
A simulated universe is a universe itself..
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
 Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26970164 - 10/05/20 06:03 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i listened to the Big TOE triology on audiobook, as i found it was great to listen to in that format. he narrates it himself, which is always nice.
rgv,
if everything in the universe is a product of information, and that information is generated when any system in the universe selects between a finite number of possible states, then what is the operating system? who/what/how/when/why/where is the one creating the information?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
I have never considered that the universe is a product of information, that is backwards: we obtain information about the universe. each view would fill an infinite repository of information.
the universe produces an infinite source of infinities of information, not the other way around.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
|
i think a better way to describe it than simiulation is "quantum simile"
anyway, i wonder what the purpose of the simulation is?
are humans and their human thoughts some kind of hitchhikers?
|
Brian Jones
Club 27
Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,426
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 3 days, 3 hours
|
|
If they were going to simulate a universe, they could have done a better job of it.
--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26970897 - 10/05/20 04:35 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Warrk said:
I've listened to this a number of times, all 1.5 hours of it.
I wouldn't mind hearing what others think of it:
The blurb for it: "Join Riz for a lively conversation with Tom Campbell author of My Big TOE, and one of the earlier proponents of simulation theory. ....
. On the one hand Tom Campbell is very careful to let us know he is a meditator extraordinaire. Just from learning TM he could immediately do inexplicable things, then he mastered astral travel before Monroe showed him how, and then he worked with Monroe. It makes a great captivating story just like Castaneda's tales; but for me on second thought it raises red flags, when someone is so proud of their personal metaphysical achievements.
. On the other hand the theory that everything is a simulation is far from new or groundbreaking. It is a rehash of about 3000 year old Hindu mythology.
see for example:
http://www.thebuddhagarden.com/brahma-hindu-god-creation.html
scrolling down we find:
"One interesting aspect of different creation stories is that sometimes Vishnu or Shiva are given credit for creating the world. It is believed that they dreamed up the creation of the universe, with Brahma doing all the heavy lifting in the dream, as if he were just following the blueprints laid out by the other two gods. "
. Back then the word for 'simulation' was 'dream' as in: "its all just Brahma (or Vishnu) dreaming."
Edited by laughingdog (10/05/20 04:39 PM)
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said:
. On the one hand Tom Campbell is very careful to let us know he is a meditator extraordinaire. Just from learning TM he could immediately do inexplicable things, then he mastered astral travel before Monroe showed him how, and then he worked with Monroe. It makes a great captivating story just like Castaneda's tales; but for me on second thought it raises red flags, when someone is so proud of their personal metaphysical achievements.
Huge red flags for sure, HUGE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence right? On the internet many people make incredible claims whether that is working on UFOs at Area 51 (I'm looking at you Bob Lazar) or having special paranormal abilities or whatever.
To be fair though, Campbell was asked to tell a bit of background about himself. What he says sounds loopy and one's immediate reaction is "What's this guy on" and "Is he for real?" The thing is, the guy's never taken any drugs so he's not some Castaneda type on a wild hallucinatory trip or embarking on a literary adventure embellished with imagination.
The question that begs to be asked is "Is Campbell credible?". Is he really a physicist? Has he worked at NASA as he says he has and is there evidence that he was there?
A bit of digging around on NASA's website brings this up:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090014192
On page 8 of that document it says:
"THOMAS W. CAMPBELL is currently consulting in the field of Probabilistic Design Analysis for NASA. He has over 36 years of experience working with the Department of Defense in several fields, including systems engineering; technology development; physics-based modeling and simulation; algorithm and software development; intelligence analysis; radars, antenna, and electronic environments analysis; system security engineering; technology transfer, reuse, and insertion; engineering management and program management; and system risk and vulnerability. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions."
I've read Castaneda's book Tales of Power and I remember Don Juan's emphasis on impeccability in order to become a warrior and a shaman.
Since reading the book, I've often asked myself if so-and-so is impeccable whenever I come across a person making extraordinary claims. The vast majority of people are pathological liars. We tell fibs, we exaggerate, we fill in the gaps when our memory fails us. On YouTube you can see when someone is telling a lie from their body language.
With Campbell, he's about the most impeccable person I have come across. He is not crazy nor is he a charlatan out to rob us or induct us into a weird cult that's steals our souls. As he is fond of saying, go out and experience it for yourself and make up your own mind, don't believe what he says.
The problem is most of us are blinded by our belief traps, we are so conditioned to thinking a certain way that we cannot fathom the world being any other way except for the constructs we have built to reinforce those beliefs.
The Simulation Theory is not new, that's true. Some of the brightest minds in Silicon Valley are adherents:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/silicon-valley-is-obsessed-with-a-false-notion-of-reality/503963/
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26971747 - 10/06/20 08:57 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
There is no inference from a universe being simulated that produces an impeccable result, it is not elegant and simple as are other fundamental principles in the world.
I think he sees something in the "simulation" metaphor but it is not what you were hoping it would be. Instead it is a misappropriation of the term that you and others are stretching to mean a lot more voodoo that it does.
In particular, there is no ingenious massive scale simulator to which we are all connected, other than your own mind, and your mind is not producing the consistent matter and energy that you are simulating into a view of the world, merely interpreting what is there agaist what was there in moments through your past.
So the precise viewpoint you have of the universe is a slightly different simulation than any viewpoint I may have including the same facts. this is a case where the term 'simulation' works.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:I think he sees something in the "simulation" metaphor but it is not what you were hoping it would be. Instead it is a misappropriation of the term that you and others are stretching to mean a lot more voodoo that it does.
Hmmm... I dunno rgv. I take the word "simulation" the way Campbell describes it, I don't really know what it really means or how others see it, it is not a word I use in my every day lexicon.
This is what Campbell is on about: he says the physical material world is digital, it comes in discrete chunks, or bits and bytes. In other words, it is not smooth and continuous. Take a chair as an example. If you break a chair into smaller and smaller pieces, you no longer have merely smaller pieces of chair. Or take a drop of water and break it into smaller and smaller bits, and initially you will get smaller and smaller droplets of water. However, at some stage the water will no longer be water as we know it. One molecule of water by way of example no longer looks like water and it no longer has the fluid qualities of water. Can one molecule of water be wet? If we keep tunnellng down, that one molecule becomes atoms, then fermions and bosons as the ultimate elementary units of matter with no further substructures or components to them.
Then we might ask ourselves, but what are these elementary units of matter really? What are they made of? Can we see a charm quark, smell it, touch it? What exactly is an electron?
Quantum mechanics tell us that matter is merely potentialities as exemplified by the wave function, that the world is a probabalistic, statistical one. The location of an electron can be anywhere, and everywhere all at once, and is defined by a probability distribution.
There is no voodoo in that. This is science as science has been taught to me, and in turn as I have taught my students at university.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26971930 - 10/06/20 11:02 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
each of your statements has a profound discontinuity of scale in it.
quanta are not digital, either or, 1 vs. zero, that is digital.
data storage in binary is digital, rendering of frames to a screen from stored data using mathematical formulae is simulation.
the physical world is not digital.
breaking the chair down to invisible components means that you are going into a scale that does not conform to stable attributes using our senses. that does not warrant declaration of simulation.
this statement "Quantum mechanics tell us that matter is merely potentialities as exemplified by the wave function, that the world is a probabilistic, statistical one. The location of an electron can be anywhere, and everywhere all at once, and is defined by a probability distribution." reveals a lot of the problem:
The wave function and probability are mathematical descriptions; they are not the physical instantiation of the matter or energy reality, just a description, from a point of view, at a moment.
It would only be a simulation if the instantiations were expressions of the functions plugged into a simulator. UNLESS, all of reality was, in fact, the simulator and the simulation. This absurd notion presumes that every point in space is equipped with the formulae and a representation of all other points in space.
At that point the metaphor is excessively top heavy. That would lead to unhealthy entanglements.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26972387 - 10/06/20 03:30 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
. Another way to look at is what can you do with Simulation Theory that you couldn't do otherwise.
. I don't know exactly what the Hindus did with it other than to help folks get a feeling for awesomeness.
. But when Buddhists compare the universe to a dream or foam, it becomes another metaphor to show the folly of clinging & attachment. That it's all similar to a dream is also just another way driving home the teaching of impermanence.
. By contrast Simulation Theory, seems to appeal to those people, that want to grasp, a very fancy theory, that will give them a deep objective understanding.
. By contrast Buddhism aims to facilitate an inner change in a person such that, intellectual understanding, is only the "icing on the cake". Perhaps there are better metaphors, ... But anyway... the idea is that if the experiential core of a person is changed, the outer intellectual expression will take care of itself. This seems more valuable...
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
I am not sure about changing a person's core, more like reconnecting to the core with which you have lost touch.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Rahz
Alive Again
Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,335
|
|
There are similarities between reality and simulations. This is reasonable because simulations were created to simulate reality. Even prior to the use of the word, early computers simulated things we were already doing by hand.
But there's a certain line of logic that makes it hard to wholly discredit the simulation idea. If space and time are products of QM, then it is essentially information or the state of energy, giving rise to matter and the line between reality and simulation becomes blurred.
None of that is enough to make me think such a thing is true. One must suppose an original reality gave birth to a simulation so it's possible for there to be a real reality. Why not this one? How would a true reality differ? It seems off the scale to consider such things.
So from that aspect there's a possible ignorance at play. But if we are living in a sim? So what? That changes things how exactly?
--------------------
rahz
comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace
"Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Rahz]
#26972869 - 10/06/20 08:13 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Simulation or 'reality' in both cases there is something more fundamental
This is what Buddha addressed 2500 years ago.
What or who is doing, the perceiving of the Simulation or 'reality'?
If the self is not separate from the Simulation or 'reality', that reframes the issue.
And if the self, is not stable, unified, autonomous, or permanent that also reframes the issue.
What one ends up with is oneness that has no need to label itself.
It is the same with discussions of AI, and Donald Hoffman's theory, they were all not only "beaten to the punch", but also addressed on a more profound level 2500 years ago. Of course 'nobody's ego' likes this. Everyone wants to 'hold onto self', and furthermore add more insights to it.
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
It is true that the map is not the territory and that the model is not the reality, just as mathematics is not the phenomenon nor are words the object etc.
When we communicate information we have to be aware that the communication is representational. Everything is metaphor. So "simulation" is a metaphor as is "reality". The 2 are not mutually exclusive though, Campbell in his Theory of Everything is saying that our reality IS a simulation, or can be thought of as a simulation, a virtual reality. What is beyond this reality we may ask? What was before the Big Bang, or before the start of time? We just don't know although there are different ideas but I doubt we can ever test these ideas with experiments.
When we ask what reality is, this is about as deep as we can get and it is no surprise that humanity has been entertaining this for aeons. Even today the jury is not out among physicists as to whether reality is analogue or digital for example, top tier scientist debate the various scenarios and there is no consensus. However, the Simulation Hypothesis is gaining traction and being considered along with all the other models out there.
For me, Campbell's explanation of reality makes sense, it works for me. No doubt it will be further refined as new observations and phenomena have to be accounted for as they arise. Uncertainty is not a bad position to take and at the end of the day the totality of reality is ineffable, it is too complex for our small human minds to comprehend it all, but some stories and some metaphors have a better fit than others.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk] 1
#26973323 - 10/07/20 06:57 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
your first sentence is agreeable, but the big TOE either is a metaphor or is a bad proposal for how reality works, not both - no matter how small you have been made to think your mind is.
if Cambell makes you feel a bit dumb, tell him to FO.
the whole idea of a theory is to explain, why should campbells theory include "it is too complex for our small human minds to comprehend it all". it is screaming through a loophole that is derogatory to its inability to grasp its own suggestion. (like most religions)
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
rgv you don't make sense to me.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26973433 - 10/07/20 08:32 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
but campbell does make sense to you because he adds "you don't have to understand, just believe me - I'm very smart - check my bio".
I am not fine with that.
this should be simple to understand.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Ferdinando
Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,748
|
|
I get it
he makes up shit
and people think they can say whatever they want
when the truth is facts and some find out what it all means
people shouldn't get away with that
rather understand that there is truth and it is fact and people understand it
and they are absolutely right
and people who haven't found out what it all means are not necessarily right
I could be wrong
but some aren't
it's a special class of people
or people like bhante
it's an important teaching
before that you say I am not necessarily right
I can think and make theories and try to underastand
and try to find out what it all means
--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world
|
Ferdinando
Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,748
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Ferdinando]
#26973444 - 10/07/20 08:38 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
before that you think and listen to what the world is saying
and your main job is to do as good as possible
--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Ferdinando]
#26973497 - 10/07/20 09:19 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ferdinando said:
before that you think and listen to what the world is saying
and your main job is to do as good as possible
this works
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
but campbell does make sense to you because he adds "you don't have to understand, just believe me - I'm very smart - check my bio".
I am not fine with that.
this should be simple to understand.
may be belief precedes understanding. sometimes people donāt understand an idea intellectually, but they can still respond to that idea through non-intellectual pathways.
sometimes one has to believe in "impossible things" to facilitate the existence of these impossible things into mundane reality. belief is extraordinary. understanding is mundanity.
|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,978
Last seen: 2 days, 18 hours
|
|
just as often, if not much more often, belief gets in the way of understanding
--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Kickle]
#26973536 - 10/07/20 10:00 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
may be it depends on the idea being facilitated?
if i believe i can sprout wings and fly, could i overcome my understanding of how gravity functions? may be well defined physical laws can't be transcended with belief, but what about things in physical reality that are less absolute?
|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,978
Last seen: 2 days, 18 hours
|
|
I think beliefs preclude understanding but cannot take the place of understanding. That's why the scientific method utilizes a hypothesis (belief) which it then tests (experiment) to come to understanding (results). Then with the results, one ensures they can reproduce the same results over and over and are not mistaking their understanding.
Belief is good in this way IMO and great discoveries have been made with nothing but belief at their core. But in my experience most people find a belief and stop at step 1 (hypothesis) while pretending it's understanding. This means that the other steps never happen and no sincere understanding ever emerges.
--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc: 
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Kickle]
#26973566 - 10/07/20 10:19 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It's perhaps a little of topic but I think that this could be of interest:
There is a scientist (Nick Bostrƶm) who has written what he calls the simulation argument, which says somethin along the lines of this:
There are 3 possible futures:
1. Humanity will die before we make detailed simulations of our evolution
2. Humanity will choose to not make detailed simulations of our evolution
3. Humanity will choose to make detailed simulations of our evolution
If 3 is our future, then we can assume that we wont run 1 simulation, but endless simulations to get statistical accuracy, and test various parameters. And if each simulation will contain a "copy" of our world, the number of simulated individuals, and simulated worlds, will be A LOT more than the actual world (1).
Thereby implying that if 3 is correct, the odds are vastly in favor of us living in a simulation. 
There is actually a Joe Rogan Episide with Nick Bostrƶm were this is discussed:
Some other links:
https://www.simulation-argument.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#26973809 - 10/07/20 01:11 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
everything that is happening is possible.
we do not need to believe in impossible things unless we want to follow the red queen:
Quote:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
but campbell does make sense to you because he adds "you don't have to understand, just believe me - I'm very smart - check my bio".
I am not fine with that.
this should be simple to understand.
if i recall correctly, this is how Thomas Campbellās whole theory in the My Big TOE trilogy is laid out for the audience - he encourages the reader to NOT take his word for any of his theories - he lays out a hypothesis, and encourages the individual to test them out themselves, to not fall into belief traps.
Quote:
To focus our discussion of belief traps, let me give you a more precise and clear understanding of what I mean when I use the words ābeliefā and āknowledge.ā Beliefs may be cultural, religious, scientific, or personal. Belief is generated and necessitated by ignorance. If you know for sure, belief is not required. In that case, you have real knowledge. Knowledge is derived from knowing what is true. If your apparent knowledge is false, you only believe that you know. In this situation, belief is masquerading as knowledge. Belief posing as knowledge is pseudo-knowledge, not real knowledge.
ā¦
Everyone understands the terms ācultural beliefā and āreligious belief", but some may be wondering what is meant by scientific belief and personal belief. Scientific belief is the belief that the larger reality and all truth must be solely defined by, and limited to, objective, repeatable-on-demand, consistent, PMR hard-science measurements. This is the narrow view of the scientific method cast as an exclusive PMR-only dogma. Though this belief holds true and is wonderfully productive for a certain subset of reality, it does not hold in a bigger picture that contains consciousness ā much as classical mechanics fails in a bigger picture that contains very high velocities (which requires relativistic mechanics) and very small sizes (which requires quantum mechanics).
ā¦
Many feel compelled to either believe or disbelieve all information they come in contact with and quickly pass a judgment on everything accordingly. Such a process leaves little room and little time for actual knowledge and shows no particular interest in truth. For these individuals, pseudo-knowledge is good enough, especially if it also happens to reduce anxiety and be widely accepted.
This approach to information is unfortunate and produces a tendency to jump to conclusions based upon erroneous feel-good assumptions.
The result of understanding, appreciating, and accepting the limits of your knowledge is that you neither believe nor disbelieve much of the information that initially lies beyond your knowledge. Judgment should be suspended until sufficient data are collected. That method of approaching information is called open-minded. The quality (rigor) of the conditions and processes that define āsufficientā is dependent upon how scientific your exploration is. Good science produces actual knowledge whereas bad science produces only pseudo-knowledge.
--Book 1, Section 2, Chapter 19
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
everything that is happening is possible.
we do not need to believe in impossible things unless we want to follow the red queen:
Quote:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
impossible need not mean nonsense.
the Red Queen has some brilliant nonsense.
when reality appears nonsensical, with a willingness to experiment, it can become perfectly intelligible.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
what of Campbell's TOE did you test out for yourself?
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Kickle]
#26973871 - 10/07/20 01:44 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
I think beliefs preclude understanding but cannot take the place of understanding. That's why the scientific method utilizes a hypothesis (belief) which it then tests (experiment) to come to understanding (results). Then with the results, one ensures they can reproduce the same results over and over and are not mistaking their understanding.
Belief is good in this way IMO and great discoveries have been made with nothing but belief at their core. But in my experience most people find a belief and stop at step 1 (hypothesis) while pretending it's understanding. This means that the other steps never happen and no sincere understanding ever emerges.
i wonder why more people don't have a willingness to test their hypotheses?
why are people unwilling to make certain core beliefs unmalleable?
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
what of Campbell's TOE did you test out for yourself?
iāve challenged my consciousness, testing the furthest limits of what should be impossible and have experienced: astral travel, medium abilities, bilocation, precognitive dreams, and remote viewing. iāve walked thru walls, died and came back to life, seen the birth of a universe thru a black hole, wrote a book that predicted the future, and built a simple quantum computer that gathers interdimensional information.
Joseph Campbell says maybe a mystic is a scientist from inner space.
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
. If you go to youtube you can find endless interpretations as to the various meanings of "The Matrix" movie which is about simulation vs reality. Seems that by now there are maybe 4 movies in the series. Then you can read the comments, and more comments as the hours pass.
. I clicked on one video that was supposed to give the hidden secret -- can you guess what is was? All the vast majority of mankind are 'sleeping' and under the power of Satan! but you have to watch for awhile before the secret is revealed.
. Seems to me once again we see that conviction is more likely to signal delusion than insight.
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
Bertrand Russell
We see the same thing now with science vs politics. Because science is subtle, takes its time, and explores options, and reserves judgement while collecting more data and experimenting and learning; but the masses want instant certainty, and the politicians only want power and influence and so pander to the lowest levels of society.
So I am in no hurry to think embracing some new theory, is a better way to expand consciousness, than say "don't know mind" .
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=don%27t+know+mind&t=h_&ia=web
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
what of Campbell's TOE did you test out for yourself?
iāve challenged my consciousness, t... iāve walked thru walls, died and came back to life, ....
. But what you all haven't done is realized that if you yourselves are a simulation, the only thing left to do is laugh at yourselves.
. Would assume that is Zen 101 .............
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
i like laugh at yourself. that's good.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
lostintimenspc
Stranger
Registered: 03/13/20
Posts: 227
Last seen: 10 days, 11 hours
|
|
The universe might not be much of anything. Beautiful, strange, but ultimately something that has a resolution in consciousness and doesn't require much attention.
--------------------
LSD, mushrooms and DMT are different structural levels within the same magically simulated mystery sometimes blandly called 'life'
Your life, your call.
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said:
iāve challenged my consciousness, testing the furthest limits of what should be impossible and have experienced: astral travel, medium abilities, bilocation, precognitive dreams, and remote viewing. iāve walked thru walls, died and came back to life, seen the birth of a universe thru a black hole, wrote a book that predicted the future, and built a simple quantum computer that gathers interdimensional information.
Joseph Campbell says maybe a mystic is a scientist from inner space.
I have admittedly lost sight of the core of Campbell's teachings unfortunately and had to listen to some of his more recent presentations on YouTube to reconnect. It ultimately isn't about what reality is or what we believe in. I think the hardest lessons are the longest ones and I keep finding myself stumbling and having to pick myself up again from my stupidity and ego.
The Simulation Hypothesis is a tiny part of Tom Campbell's big picture and maybe I have placed too much of an emphasis on it by using it in the subject line.
What I admire most about Campbell is his humanity and his guidance on how to become a better person. I get what he is saying but I guess putting it into practice is another thing and this is where I struggle.
Using the concept of entropy and explaining our life's purpose in entropy terms makes sense to me. Developing the quality of our consciousness, being a better person (instead of acting or pretending), also makes sense.
I have to keep reminding myself that it doesn't matter what we know, what we believe in, how much we have, what we can do and what we have accomplished in our lives that matter... it is how we treat each other.
I get nudges from the larger consciousness system from time to time that gives me confidence that I am not a total lost cause and that I should try harder...
|
nooneman
Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,700
Loc: Utah
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26979407 - 10/11/20 03:03 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think it might actually be possible to prove mathematically that the universe is not simulated (assuming that it isn't, which I think it's not).
The main thing is whether or not you could efficiently compute everything that the universe does. If the universe does things that can't be efficiently computed, or that can't be computed at all, then that would be proof that the universe is not a simulation. Not all things can be efficiently computed. The traveling salesman problem is the classic example of something that has no efficient solutions. Some things can't be computed at all. If the universe does any of these (especially efficiently on a very large scale), then it cannot be a simulation.
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: nooneman]
#26979512 - 10/11/20 06:15 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Seems to me what is not realized by the question or the theory: 'that the universe is simulated', is that the question is itself, based on assumptions that may not be true.
For example it assumes we are all in the same 'reality' or 'simulation'. But Mozart's inner world was completely different from Einstein's, in fact all inner worlds are unique.
It also assumes, that we have a handle on our 'reality'; but as full of shit as Freud was, he did teach us about self deception or in psychological terms the 10-15 ego defense mechanisms. What this means is that most folks are a bit kooky anyway, so it makes no difference...
This is delightfully portrayed in the movie "King of Hearts".
Bob Dylan: "With a time-rusted compass blade Aladdin and his lamp Sits with Utopian hermit monks Side saddle on the Golden Calf And on their promises of paradise You will not hear a laugh All except inside the Gates of Eden" *
The more seriously the theory is taken the more I doubt it. And writing a book about it is pretty serious.
*https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858531098/
interestingly the first comment (at the site linked above) on the meaning of the song "the gates of Eden" relates the meaning of the entire song to the folly of attaching to 'one size fits all' answers.
It seems an interesting take on it. Apparently Dylan was much more literate than most hippies.
Edited by laughingdog (10/11/20 06:39 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26979564 - 10/11/20 07:37 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Warrk said:...
I have to keep reminding myself that it doesn't matter what we know, what we believe in, how much we have, what we can do and what we have accomplished in our lives that matter... it is how we treat each other.
I get nudges from the larger consciousness system from time to time that gives me confidence that I am not a total lost cause and that I should try harder...
yes "how we treat each other" including ourselves is important, ergo enjoy those nudges, but rather than "should try harder" simply begin again when you find it is suitable. (i.e. become aware of suitability and context, and less pushy to yourself eg. not so much "should"-ing). be fresh.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
1drop
Stranger
Registered: 10/11/20
Posts: 28
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
|
Interesting ..
The world might infact be a simulation .
Computer games are often simulation . Somebody had to conceptualise different elements for the game mechanics to work.
What if there are a handful or even one architect programming this whole thing .
To me the greatest result of creating such simulation would be for the generated components to acknowledge the architect on their own free will .
Imagine having programmed GTA to then realise the in game character is addressing you the programmer, personally in real time .. previously un programmed to do so ..
And that my friends is the game we might be placed in . To see if we could be the AI .. we are trying to emulate via technological advancements . Anybody seen Rick n Morty 
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: 1drop]
#26989637 - 10/17/20 06:32 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
you would have to believe that proto-cells could not form naturally out of primordial soup; but we have seen the necessary elements combine naturally in laboratory settings, so the presumption of architect would have to go all the way to sub-atomic particles and fields.
I see no evidence of god-architect just because we can create a game, a flight simulator, or a warfare simulator.
it is not simulation, this is happening naturally. yes, it is hard to simulate this in your own mind, and your mind can imagine a more powerful mind achieving simulation - but that is not the issue.
the issue is one of creation. proposing a creator, we may be able to stop looking for the secrets of composition scientifically, and return to the good old days of sacrificing goats to achieve favor from the gods.
the whole concept is a cloud of scientific fake news.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Rahz
Alive Again
Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,335
|
|
Indeed. A thought experiment that's entertained as truth because humans have difficulty with not filling in the blanks.
But a God or Creator that would create all this, it's difficult to conceive that any sentient being would create so much suffering. There is joy too, but from such a supposed omnipotent source joy cannot justify the suffering IMO.
--------------------
rahz
comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace
"Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Rahz]
#26989963 - 10/17/20 11:35 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There is the possibility that a putative Creator is fabulously powerful, but not truly omnipotent.
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
that would be us
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Rahz
Alive Again
Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,335
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
There is the possibility that a putative Creator is fabulously powerful, but not truly omnipotent.
Not omnipotent enough to make the decision to not do it?
I guess there are various ways of looking at the moral issues involved in creating a universe such as this one, but it seems pretty whack.
Fair point in mentioning that a creator may not be omnipotent, but there's no vector for suggesting why suffering is unavoidable due to lack of omnipotence.
--------------------
rahz
comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace
"Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Rahz]
#26990656 - 10/17/20 08:42 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps the degree of control to prevent all suffering is lacking. Or perhaps suffering is necessary for unimaginable reasons. 
Just speculating.
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
A creator explains nothing ! I don't get the fascination with the notion -- no one can imagine a time before time existed ! One cannot imagine a beginning to time.
The only explanation for such fantasies are psychological - its nice to have someone to pray to, or my god is more powerful than yours, or I have a special insight into how it all works, or I now feel loved knowing god is watching over me.
Or I can't stand mystery, or uncertainty, or not having an explanation when others have one. Or it disturbs me that the universe is so amazing, and big and I am so little -- so now
that I know it has a moral purpose I won't feel lost.
In any case whatever the emotional reason(s), I consider trading one's rationality for very questionable and flimsy comfort to be a very bad and regrettable bargain .
And as regards simulation, we all have different distorted models of external & internal reality, in our minds & brain anyway, to far greater degree, than we are aware of or even want to acknowledge, IMO.
Edited by laughingdog (10/17/20 11:07 PM)
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Noble Prize winning physicist George Smoot on the Simulation Hypothesis:
It is not a very good presentation imo and the title misleading.
This one is better, Neil deGrasse Tyson is always great to listen to and is one of my favourites:
The American Museum of Natural History even had a debate about this which was fun:
But really it is all entertainment and for the most part it doesn't matter whether we are living in a virtual reality or not, bacon still tastes good and sunsets are amazing...
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26993703 - 10/19/20 09:29 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The question (re simulation or not) pretends to be profound - but is not IMO.
2500 years ago Buddha undermined the fantasy that there is a self that is unified, stable, & autonomous; and today one can verify this by tripping.
Given the illusory nature of the sense of self, as a proof of a more or less tangible self, theories as to the nature of "ultimate reality" sort of lose their charm.
So he focused on what matters: the subjective experience of suffering /stress/anxiety.
But of course folks being folks want to have their cake and eat it too.
Everyone wants a nice new sparkly attractive self image. and a deep insight into "ultimate reality" , so they can maintain 'a leg up' on it all.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
if we were insects we would have more legs up.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said:
The question (re simulation or not) pretends to be profound - but is not IMO.
2500 years ago Buddha undermined the fantasy that there is a self that is unified, stable, & autonomous; and today one can verify this by tripping.
Given the illusory nature of the sense of self, as a proof of a more or less tangible self, theories as to the nature of "ultimate reality" sort of lose their charm.
So he focused on what matters: the subjective experience of suffering /stress/anxiety.
But of course folks being folks want to have their cake and eat it too.
Everyone wants a nice new sparkly attractive self image. and a deep insight into "ultimate reality" , so they can maintain 'a leg up' on it all.
No, the question, or rather the idea, does not pretend anything...
Maybe there are some people who delve into this concept and pretend it's a super duper innovative thought, to portray their worldview as more profound than it actually is, but the idea itself is just a simple idea. It makes no claims what so ever. It is a valid question, and it is a question that is very similar to religious questions of old, but in a modern context.
It seems like you want to deny the question its worth just because some pretentious lost souls uses it wrong?
Personally I find it somewhat intriguing to entertain the notion. The same way it's intriguing to image the size of an infinite universe, or similar thoughts.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#26994471 - 10/20/20 12:21 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
that's true, however,
as a question, it is subject to answering,
even if it is not that kind of question,
and as an answer, 'no' seems more right than 'yes' does.
it is a similar question to the one about being a butterfly and dreaming you are a person.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
ok Malkuthian ... you make good points: "No, the question, or rather the idea, does not pretend anything.." etc
But in a dream our dream self is a simulation...
or is it?
if on a metaphorical level 'the deep' psyche is working out issues
then is there even one 'real' self?
The waking self does not know the deep issues or how to solve them, and may not even know of the dream self;
and the dream self, is not the same from dream to dream and only lasts for minutes, and has no awareness that there even is a separate physical/"waking" state (that also exists concurrently or that it itself is only a fleeting simulation).
All of what we take to be 'reality' is only a mental construction, of these partial selves, in their corresponding different 'realities'.
So it seems you, Malkuthian, find the simulation question interesting, while I find life to already be much wilder or freaky than the question, and thus the question less interesting, and I have no problem with this.
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
even if it is not that kind of question,
and as an answer, 'no' seems more right than 'yes' does.
I am quite open to the possibility, but I would agree with you that 'no' seems more right.
But I still think it's a perspective that is worth examining.
Have you looked at the simulation argument from Nick Bostrƶm, which I previously posted?
Quote:
laughingdog said:
So it seems you, Malkuthian, find the simulation question interesting, while I find life to already be much wilder or freaky than the question, and thus the question less interesting, and I have no problem with this.
The way I see it you raise questions/ideas that one might argue are more intriguing, but I don't see the reason to deny "inferior ideas" just because "superior ideas" exist.
I don't quite understand the dichotomy which is created when you compare the ideas to each other. Yea, sure, life is already "wilder", so why not allow it to be even more freaky, by adding yet another unknown
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian] 1
#26995016 - 10/20/20 05:23 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I did not watch the video, I miss a lot of culture that does not come in books or comic books (preferably) or text and image combinations.
video to me is a bit like driving, you have to sit there and watch it play out. (alright I am waiting for the new Star Trek: Discovery, but that is not talking heads)
I really do not like driving, or watching talking heads if I can read their dialog offline.
with reading you can scan quickly and focus on interesting things.
especially with talking heads, just give me a transcript, please.
Quote:
Malkuthian said:
It's perhaps a little of topic but I think that this could be of interest:
There is a scientist (Nick Bostrƶm) who has written what he calls the simulation argument, which says somethin along the lines of this:
There are 3 possible futures:
1. Humanity will die before we make detailed simulations of our evolution
2. Humanity will choose to not make detailed simulations of our evolution
3. Humanity will choose to make detailed simulations of our evolution
If 3 is our future, then we can assume that we wont run 1 simulation, but endless simulations to get statistical accuracy, and test various parameters. And if each simulation will contain a "copy" of our world, the number of simulated individuals, and simulated worlds, will be A LOT more than the actual world (1).
Thereby implying that if 3 is correct, the odds are vastly in favor of us living in a simulation.
There is actually a Joe Rogan Episide with Nick Bostrƶm were this is discussed:
Some other links:
https://www.simulation-argument.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Re Malkuthian
. Another aspect is that many folks wives fake orgasm & the guys are better off not knowing...
. Likewise if one bothers looking up the statistics most everyone tells a lot of lies every day, and thus many are constantly deceived.
. Basically my view is that the whole question assumes that there is some possibility of knowing more about some one stable agreed upon 'reality', that is useful, on an everyday level. I doubt this, on many grounds. Of course those with a religiously oriented mindset, will hate this view.
. Meditation which is scientifically and medically proven to reduce stress, does not rely, on intellectual sophistry, which I consider this question to be an example of.
. So I think there are better ways to spend ones time. I say this to share my viewpoint, not to sell a position. To each their own. Personally I like to question assumptions.
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
I did not watch the video, I miss a lot of culture that does not come in books or comic books (preferably) or text and image combinations.
video to me is a bit like driving, you have to sit there and watch it play out. (alright I am waiting for the new Star Trek: Discovery, but that is not talking heads)
I really do not like driving, or watching talking heads if I can read their dialog offline.
with reading you can scan quickly and focus on interesting things.
especially with talking heads, just give me a transcript, please.
I did link the official webpage from the scientist as well, for those more prone to reading:
Simulation Argument Report- PDF
Published in Philosophical Quarterly(2003)Vol.53,No.211,pp.243ā255.(First version:2001)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#26995780 - 10/21/20 06:04 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Half way through the first part I think that he is right to suggest that the potential to simulate or achieve consciousness using advanced computing techniques is in a likely future reality. This would enable a fabricated creature like DATA to be an officer on a starship. Which brings us back to science fiction scenarios, and that is what this one is, purposefully dry science fiction with it's own formula posturing to join the ranks of ready to be peer reviewed science.
the summary is reasonable in the constraints of the proposition but not as a general belief system:
Quote:
If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching
posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the
courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively
wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestorāsimulations and are free to do so.
If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of
our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion oneās credence roughly
evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost
certainly never run an ancestorāsimulation.
so it is a more unlikely thing than likely that we are in a simulation, unless we are in a simulation. (which is to say, probably not, and there is a lot we do not know.)
his is a proof of "no" more than "yes", though it seems to lend credence to yes for those that do want to believe.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
RedNucleus
Causal Observer
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26996078 - 10/21/20 10:12 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I just started playing the podcast. On the subject of entities, I had a recurring closed eye hallucination when I used shrooms in the past. With my eyes closed, I would see a crowd of brown animated corpses. They looked frightening, but I was not frightened. Those corpses which the gaze of my mind's eye fell upon would reach straight towards me. The corpses adjacent to them would partially reach. The rest would have their arms at their sides. As I shifted the gaze of my mind's eye, the arms of those my gaze fell upon would stretch their arms towards me. The others would drop their arms. They made no other movements and were unresponsive to my attempts to communicate. But sure enough, minutes later, if I closed my eyes again, there they were, always with that same behavior. It recurred once or twice on other occasions, identically.
What strikes me as unusual was the consistency of the look and behavior of this hallucination. Why corpses? Why reaching when gazed upon? Why no other behavior? Why didn't their appearance ever shift and evolve into different imagery, like most CEV's? Why did it persist so constantly, over the course of multiple mushroom experiences?
...Ah, he is on the topic of hemisync. I used to have that on my old iPod.
--------------------
 Namaste
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: RedNucleus]
#26996267 - 10/21/20 12:05 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
maybe you are fascinated with zombie films:
as long as people keep buying it they will keep making it.
and that goes for simulation scams as well.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Re: Warrk & Theory of Everything , Malkuthian and Co.
Considering the number of people that believe in religions that contradict one another
and
the number of people that go to war, and spend the rest of their lives handicapped, because they thought they were patriots, in a war politicians, and weapons manufacturers cooked up
(for just 2 examples),
the idea that a simulated reality (as in the Movie: 'The Matrix')
is shocking because it undermines what would otherwise be a firm grasp of 'reality' seems a bit lame to say the least.
Beyond religion and war, a large number of cultures have different versions, of conditioning people to pay attention to what is considered important in the world.
Then we have a cornucopia of defense mechanisms, and all the psychological abnormalities, and inner conflicts, etc.
So again the idea that our firm grasp of reality is being undermined by its being a simulation is really just a disguised way of flattering ourselves, that we really have a handle on things. IMO
Those who are in prison are those who got caught,
perhaps the same is true for those in the 'nut house'.
If tomorrow they said the big bang theory or the simulation theory was correct, it would make absolutely no difference to all the human follies and sufferings or pun lovers. IMO
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said:
Re Malkuthian
. Another aspect is that many folks wives fake orgasm & the guys are better off not knowing...
. Likewise if one bothers looking up the statistics most everyone tells a lot of lies every day, and thus many are constantly deceived.
. Basically my view is that the whole question assumes that there is some possibility of knowing more about some one stable agreed upon 'reality', that is useful, on an everyday level. I doubt this, on many grounds. Of course those with a religiously oriented mindset, will hate this view.
. Meditation which is scientifically and medically proven to reduce stress, does not rely, on intellectual sophistry, which I consider this question to be an example of.
. So I think there are better ways to spend ones time. I say this to share my viewpoint, not to sell a position. To each their own. Personally I like to question assumptions.
Quote:
laughingdog said:
Re: Warrk & Theory of Everything , Malkuthian and Co.
Considering the number of people that believe in religions that contradict one another
and
the number of people that go to war, and spend the rest of their lives handicapped, because they thought they were patriots, in a war politicians, and weapons manufacturers cooked up
(for just 2 examples),
the idea that a simulated reality (as in the Movie: 'The Matrix')
is shocking because it undermines what would otherwise be a firm grasp of 'reality' seems a bit lame to say the least.
Beyond religion and war, a large number of cultures have different versions, of conditioning people to pay attention to what is considered important in the world.
Then we have a cornucopia of defense mechanisms, and all the psychological abnormalities, and inner conflicts, etc.
So again the idea that our firm grasp of reality is being undermined by its being a simulation is really just a disguised way of flattering ourselves, that we really have a handle on things. IMO
Those who are in prison are those who got caught,
perhaps the same is true for those in the 'nut house'.
If tomorrow they said the big bang theory or the simulation theory was correct, it would make absolutely no difference to all the human follies and sufferings or pun lovers. IMO
I'm not sure why this is addressed to me.
I'm 100% with you on the idea that knowing is pointless. I'm not advocating anything here really.
First of all I don't even believe in the idea that we are living in a simulation, secondly I don't think it's important if we are of if we aren't. But it is interesting to realize that this existence actually could be a simulation, which I think is the whole point of Nick Bostrƶms "simulation Argument". I don't need to dig any further than that. The mere possibility makes the concept fairly interesting to discuss.
"So I think there are better ways to spend ones time"
Better ways than what? What are you referring to with this? Which ever belief you have regarding this, why would it take up your time, except for discussing it here? If that's is the time you are referring to, then why are you discussing the matter? I don't understand where you are going with this.
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
and that goes for simulation scams as well.
What scam are you talking about?
You don't believe it is possible this is a simulation, believing that it is possible is a scam?
I don't follow.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#26997618 - 10/22/20 09:45 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I am talking about the capacity to run with a meme.
the simulated universe is a meme, but it has the character of a scam, which subtends from partially understood quantum mechanics which is also a meme, one that has several conundrums embedded within it, all scientific concepts that are largely beyond the mental refinement of most of the people who bandy about the ideas of the observer effect, entanglement, and multiverses.
in the same way that business scams consume your money and provide no real goods, these intellectual scams consume our attention but leave us in the dust holding onto mere handles that mean nothing. That is what the concept of simulated universe is: an loose handle torn from the walls of quantum mechanics and solipsism.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Or maybe it's not that coherent?
Just as I wrote to the dog previously, it seems you are actively negative towards the concept based on the fact that misuse of the concepts exists. Your making a bigger deal out of the misuse the I'm making out of the idea itself.
And why are you choosing to discuss the matter as much as you do?
Does not that mean you have bought into the scam?
It's consumes at least as much of your intellectual time as mine.
And are you saying that it is an intellectual scam, simply because it does not end with some tangible or a definitive right/wrong answer? Would you argue that the idea of the universe being infinite is an intellectual scam? Or the question: How did the world came to be? All the stuff one can ponder but never know, are those thins intellectual scams?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#26997678 - 10/22/20 10:27 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
yes to the impression that the universe is infinite, nothing suggests otherwise, and new data continues to support the investigation.
no to we wont ever know how the world came to be; it is largely understood as a narrative from the big bang, and pondering that is healthy exercise; going forward we will learn more of that story.
creationists have propagandized their intellectual scams, AKA myths, otherwise you would not have this confused.
one thing to consider is that when there are limits to what we really have discovered in science, this does not mean that all things beyond what we know are true; some may be true, some may just be wonky ideas.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
no to we wont ever know how the world came to be; it is largely understood as a narrative from the big bang, and pondering that is healthy exercise; going forward we will learn more of that story.
I was not referring to the big bang, but to: why was there a big bang in the first place? The big bang itself does not explain why the universe exist. The big bang is something we can study to learn a great deal of things, but it does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
creationists have propagandized their intellectual scams,
Yes, exactly, you are putting emphasis on misuse of the concept rather than the concept itself, as I said.
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
AKA myths, otherwise you would not have this confused.
Why are you saying I am confused? Seems a bit arrogant.
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
one thing to consider is that when there are limits to what we really have discovered in science, this does not mean that all things beyond what we know are true; some may be true, some may just be wonky ideas.
I agree completely with that. And in many cases it's easy to understand what is what, but in some cases the line between a wonky idea and an actual possibility is not as distinguishable. I would argue that there is a real chance that this is a simulation, even though I would give that chance a very low percentage.
We have had computer simulations for a very very short period of time. What happens to the level of details in computer simulations if we let time pass another 10 000 years, with quantum computers and AI? Do you think we will never ever in the entire history of man be able to simulate something as detailed as the world you are perceiving?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#26997803 - 10/22/20 11:53 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
you may simulate anything worth simulating to the degree of veracity that suits the purpose of simulation.
eg. several flight simulators are functional and lifelike for all airports in the world. However, there is no autonomous reality in it, even if it is set to take off and land and refuel and visit every airport continuously, it is not peopled, and the people (who don't exist) do not have autonomous ideas, schedules, families, histories, possessions, hopes, dreams, cellphones, credit cards, email... etc.
well perhaps you could fit all that into a simulation at 10 billion times the size and speed of the best simulator after surmounting several technological hurdles.
The expense and complexity of the project is huge, while the angles the simulation could explore remain finite; whereas, each of our lives interact in infinite variety. i.e. to make it seem real the computer would have to contain all atoms and all the space and physics to portray them, and for that it would need to be bigger than the universe itself, which is infinite. Every bit of ram memory takes more space than millions of sub-atomic particles.
so, in my opinion, the task of simulating a universe is impossible within the confines of the universe, and to pursue it further really implies the unproven existence of other larger universes which can contain simulators - serving no other purpose except to try to make the simulation concept seem reasonable.
generally the more computing you throw at a problem and the more complex you make that problem the less efficient the system becomes. Short cuts have to be taken. For this to be a simulation, we would expect more gaps (from taking shortcuts) - so far the gaps we find are mostly dark matter, and elegant equations binding time to gravity and other fields.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
I know how computing works... I to have a hard time seeing how it would be feasible. But...
...then we have people who actually work with simulations today that seem to think it actually is feasible, and then we have the factors: quantum computers, AI, and 10's of thousands of years to do it. So my inability to perceive the feasibility today, is not something I would use as a very relevant factor... Still have a hard time seeing it, but I don't want my visionary pessimism have the last word, so I will remain open for the possibility.
In modern games the information is layered. I.e. as soon as you enter a new area, or zoom in, or etc, the information for that area is loaded. Data is used only when perceived (speaking of quantum physics, there are some similarities there, ) This saves enormous amounts of computing power.
Basically I'm a very skeptical person, but I still don't want to close doors completely. I don't think I am the one to proclaim definitive truths.
If not for that, just leave the door open for the sake of philosophy...
Edited by Malkuthian (10/22/20 02:36 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#26998124 - 10/22/20 03:00 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
the door is always open, but the stack of facts remain unperturbed by the draught from that door so far.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Kewl
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#27001197 - 10/24/20 12:30 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
what kind of people/entities/energies would build a simulated universe?
did beings of a higher dimension created a simulation, that devolved them so that they could live/exist in a lower dimensional state (while being mostly forgetful of their higher dimensional state) for entertainment and/or educational purposes?
|
Malkuthian
Fetus
Registered: 12/06/15
Posts: 670
Loc:
Last seen: 11 minutes, 35 seconds
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said:
what kind of people/entities/energies would build a simulated universe?
did beings of a higher dimension created a simulation, that devolved them so that they could live/exist in a lower dimensional state (while being mostly forgetful of their higher dimensional state) for entertainment and/or educational purposes?
The idea from the guy I mentioned (Nick Bostrƶm) is that future humans create the simulation. E.g. to learn about our evolutionary history by simulating different variations of the evolution and analyzing the outcome when manipulating different factors.
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo
Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,692
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Malkuthian]
#27001220 - 10/24/20 12:47 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i wonder if Earth's Sun contains the RAM for Earth?
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe *DELETED* [Re: Malkuthian]
#27005211 - 10/26/20 07:03 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by laughingdog
Reason for deletion: .
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: laughingdog] 1
#27006955 - 10/27/20 06:53 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Here's a good one of Tom Campbell for those who might be interested. Virtual reality, purpose, morality, ethics:
|
lostintimenspc
Stranger
Registered: 03/13/20
Posts: 227
Last seen: 10 days, 11 hours
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#27019896 - 11/03/20 05:22 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Campbell is interesting. Out of body experiences have shown me a calculated, simulated, computed sort of a universe. It's almost as if the officialness we expect from Christianity is out of date. You know, in Christianity, everything is so mighty and glorious and everyone is so clean. This is really an antiquated attitude, apparently. The universe is more like a reasonable computer game, one that adapts to our needs, and seemingly isn't afraid to show its limitations, at least within and without a human body on Earth. I mean if you look at the cosmos and the galaxies it's like it's doing the opposite - showboating its infiniteness, its limitlessness. But when I smoked DMT the walls ran out of shading computation - it was like someone turned the colour depth down, and I saw pulses of electricity or magic or something go through the ceiling, as if the universe is this giant object of some kind, a kind of awkward one.
I like it. I really like the multidimensional nature of it. I think it is mysterious and it is intellectually satisfying.
--------------------
LSD, mushrooms and DMT are different structural levels within the same magically simulated mystery sometimes blandly called 'life'
Your life, your call.
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Quote:
lostintimenspc said:
Campbell is interesting. ...
. Maybe -- but what strikes me is his "lack of affect" or in everyday terms his deadpan emotionless face and delivery. He looks like he just got a botox injection and over dosed on valium.
. Compare him to other teachers that that are supposed to have some insight, for example: Eckart Tolle, who actually engages with his audience, and has a sense of humor. I can't help but wonder what caused Tom to get so attached to the comfort of calmness, as to no longer be capable of relating to others' humanness. Seems simply wierd.
Edited by laughingdog (11/04/20 09:21 AM)
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 7 days, 22 hours
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: laughingdog] 1
#27039767 - 11/15/20 12:37 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
My gripe with simulation theory is it begs two questions, that, depending on your metaphysic, can quickly lead to infinite regress:
An illusion/simulation of WHAT?
An illusion/simulation for WHOM?
If you answer "reality" and "the self" for both of those, you imply you have an existential context from which to compare and contrast these things. Outside of out of body experiences and psychedelics, this is very limited and even then tenuously consistent enough to argue as empirical proof this is a consciousness simulation.
I always say this reality is "as real as real gets", precisely because you have no other context; you're existentially anchored, as you, and that is the only unwavering, unmoving part OF your experience.
--------------------
  
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of oneās ignorance." ā Confucius
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: 
|
|
But we die though. Therefore we know this self experience is temporary. Doesnāt this grant something?
|
lostintimenspc
Stranger
Registered: 03/13/20
Posts: 227
Last seen: 10 days, 11 hours
|
|
Death is just like another day.
--------------------
LSD, mushrooms and DMT are different structural levels within the same magically simulated mystery sometimes blandly called 'life'
Your life, your call.
|
lostintimenspc
Stranger
Registered: 03/13/20
Posts: 227
Last seen: 10 days, 11 hours
|
|
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said:
My gripe with simulation theory is it begs two questions, that, depending on your metaphysic, can quickly lead to infinite regress:
An illusion/simulation of WHAT?
An illusion/simulation for WHOM?
If you answer "reality" and "the self" for both of those, you imply you have an existential context from which to compare and contrast these things. Outside of out of body experiences and psychedelics, this is very limited and even then tenuously consistent enough to argue as empirical proof this is a consciousness simulation.
I always say this reality is "as real as real gets", precisely because you have no other context; you're existentially anchored, as you, and that is the only unwavering, unmoving part OF your experience.
Yeah this is the thing I had to say about life being a dream - which reality is the dream about?
Terence McKenna weighed up whether reality was a simulacrum (ie. an illusion latched onto human experience, in that the world is mind-created) or whether it was a "cosmic system of some kind."
--------------------
LSD, mushrooms and DMT are different structural levels within the same magically simulated mystery sometimes blandly called 'life'
Your life, your call.
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 7 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
lostintimenspc said:
Death is just like another day.
You may have been joking here, but you're actually closer to reason than you may know!
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
But we die though. Therefore we know this self experience is temporary. Doesnāt this grant something?
You sure about death? All sorts of existential contradictions regarding that. Same thing with birth. They're existential bookends.
I'm admittedly caffeinated and lit AF atm, but these are my musings on this topic:
The idea of death is something I have rejected from a philosophical perspectiveā¦that is, from a perspective of capital-T Truth. I am okay with death form the purely empirical side of thingsā¦that eventually our bodies give out for whatever reason and we are returned to the dust from whence we sprung. But from a rational position, one where fundamental epistemological conceptual consistency is the only real basis for knowing anything at all (which is true), nothing about death makes sense...
...And birth, being deathās corollary in this regard, is in the same position.
You see, if we only accept truth based upon empirical āevidenceā then we can never arrive at a rational, relevant, and meaningful answer to the question āwhat is man?ā.
For man is more than his senses; more than just his body. If he were not, then consciousness would be impossible.
The Singularity of the Selfā¦that is, the constancy which is necessary for consciousness, and from consciousness, observation, and from observation, conceptualization, and from conceptualization, meaning, and from meaning Truth, is utterly denied when we accept that man is merely a transient phenomenon; that there is nothing constant and absolute about his Self; that consciousness is entirely finite; it begins with blankness, and returns to blankness, which fundamentally nullifies all which it had learned and spoken in the meantime.
Consciousness is where the empiricists and determinists and objectivists completely fail in their philosophy, which is why they relegate it to mere epiphenomenonāan illusion, with a purely subjective ontology. Consciousness, by their standards, remains āinsideā, whilst āobjective truthā is that which is found on the āoutsideā.
That this renders consciousness mutually exclusive from objective existence, and thus makes conscious understanding impossible, and thus any claims about what constitutes objective existence and truth likewise impossible, which voids their entire philosophyā¦well, that never seems to come up much.
But we can't have our cake and eat it, too.
Consciousness cannot spring from the abyss of absolute unconsciousness (pre-birth) flourish for a while to grasp all manner of empirical and objective truth, and then return to the abyss (post death).
The 1 of consciousness cannot be born from and then die to the 0 of oblivion.
Consciousness, whether we want to accept it or not, is a Singularity; it is Absolute.
The existence of You is predicated on You being a constant.
If there is no constant/absolute frame of reference for You, then You is impossible.
You cannot be a function of that which is outside of you, because then You are not actually You...
...And You cannot be merely relative to that which is outside of You because then there is no fundamental constancy to You, in which case you have no grounded frame of reference by which to define āYouā in the first place...
...And You, and by that I mean Your Self, and by that I mean your Conscious Awareness of Self, cannot merely be some (perhaps complicated or mysterious) kind of cosmic or evolutionary illusion because that begs the question: āAn illusion of what?ā And that question has no answer because the āwhatā is that which the proposition (that consciousness is purely an illusion) denies can even exist in the first place...
...And consciousness cannot likewise be a non-illusory product of some unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative process because that creates the self-defeating assertion that consciousness is direct function of unconsciousnessā¦.
...That somehow consciousness can step out of the absolutely unconscious processes from which it directly springs, observe these processes from a specific and distinct frame of reference, and proceed to make claims about the āobjectivityā of the utterly unconscious determinative nature of consciousness.
The only options we have are: 1. That Consciousness IS, and is Singular, and thus does not come from the Nothing which precedes birth and return to the Nothing which follows death; or 2. That it is a function of either a purely relative existence, unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative processes, or is an illusion. In other words, that consciousness is in fact entirely unconscious.
And only one of these two options makes consciousness actually possible.
You ARE; and You are Constant.
I donāt really care what objectivists, empiricists, scientific pseudo-philosophers, or other nihilistic determinists think; I've listened to their positions on this for years and years and it never changes and never manages to wiggle its way out from under the rock of self-defeating contradiction which crushes it to dust. I've heard everything, from appeals to quantum physics to cosmic evolution to taxicab geometry (where apparently squares are also circles ,you hear me bash people here all the time for thisā¦which, no; this is verifiably false all day long). Any and all attempts to negate consciousness as being what it self-evidently IS fail, always fail, and will fail forever.
Soā¦with that being said, how now can we proceed to understand birth and death from a rationally consistent point of view?
Do they even exist at all?
Well, subjectively, perhaps.
But "objectively"...NO!
--------------------
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of oneās ignorance." ā Confucius
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,368
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
|
Dream egos exist via survival of the fittest..
Wandering wanderlust!
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
why cannot it pop-up and poof away?
what you do with it can inspire and assist others while here
we exchange that spirit by connecting
otherwise we leave a lonely trail, but it is a trail none the less, and even that residue may have some meaning to some.
so I do not buy this statement of yours, but I do appreciate that you went to the effort to type it.
"Consciousness cannot spring from the abyss of absolute unconsciousness (pre-birth) flourish for a while to grasp all manner of empirical and objective truth, and then return to the abyss (post death). "
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Does absolute unconsciousness even exist is it possible? That would imply a point of view for something to be unconscious but absolute idk. Even still Iāll grant LS the statement that it has to come from somewhere or something in the grand scheme of things but what are the odds that death in the conventional sense turns out to be a joke where we continue to live eternally as this same personality. No I think this very much as an end. 
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
when my computer is turned off (it's a windows surface tablet thing) it is like unconscious - pretty much flatlined except for a clock ticking and wifi radio ack/naks.
after I turn it on, it awakens, and appears to be in a state where I was when I turned it off, usually.
but the essence of all that is that people can boot up rapidly from unconscious sleep to waking consciousness without coming from anyplace except our body - we can return to who we were when we last were here, usually somewhat refreshed.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 7 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
when my computer is turned off (it's a windows surface tablet thing) it is like unconscious - pretty much flatlined except for a clock ticking and wifi radio ack/naks.
after I turn it on, it awakens, and appears to be in a state where I was when I turned it off, usually.
but the essence of all that is that people can boot up rapidly from unconscious sleep to waking consciousness without coming from anyplace except our body - we can return to who we were when we last were here, usually somewhat refreshed.
Your computer also doesn't remote view or astral travel.
If it does or did, you'd still be unable to empirically "prove it" because you're also locked into an existential constant of perception yourself. Self and Other. Is your computer practicing solipsism, or is this proof of solipsism because you're locked and can't prove the computer has consciousness like you, one way or the other..., just like with other people...?
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Does absolute unconsciousness even exist is it possible? That would imply a point of view for something to be unconscious but absolute idk. Even still Iāll grant LS the statement that it has to come from somewhere or something in the grand scheme of things but what are the odds that death in the conventional sense turns out to be a joke where we continue to live eternally as this same personality. No I think this very much as an end.
I'd argue consciousness by its very nature is absolute and everything is a function OF that, including the ideas and thoughts that your consciousness is an illusion. The part that's temporary is the perception OF yourself and your body. Nobody is arguing the body expires. Your consciousness is locked into that body matrix. You can leave said matrix via lucid dreaming and astral travel, which becomes easier with practice. High dosages of psychs will also unlock this.
The only illusion is that of seperation, buffered by your perception of yourself. Life on this level is akin to a static trip that acts as home base, which most never leave. It's like being born inside your house and never leaving. You have no context that there are other houses, streets, cities, states, borders, countries...fractal reality.
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
why cannot it pop-up and poof away?
what you do with it can inspire and assist others while here
we exchange that spirit by connecting
otherwise we leave a lonely trail, but it is a trail none the less, and even that residue may have some meaning to some.
so I do not buy this statement of yours, but I do appreciate that you went to the effort to type it.
"Consciousness cannot spring from the abyss of absolute unconsciousness (pre-birth) flourish for a while to grasp all manner of empirical and objective truth, and then return to the abyss (post death). "
You cannot be a function of that which is outside of you, because then You are not actually You. And You cannot be merely relative to that which is outside of You because then there is no fundamental constancy to You, in which case you have no grounded frame of reference by which to define āYouā in the first place.
Many try to argue against this but illusion can't be the root metaphysic for this reality. If it's the base of reality then it's the base and therefore irrelevant and indiscernable without another context (which you never have, even in the ego death threads people insist this and it's fucking hilarious), which then defeats the purpose of requiring illusion as a concept to explain what you're experiencing, which is what I'm arguing is the issue here; illusion is a relative term for which you have no context because unless you're experimenting with your consciousness you never leave this plane, which is entirely anchored by perception, so that's a huge assumption to begin with.
The irony is most will argue illusion precisely because they've misappropriated their metaphysic so it requires additional, and thus unnecessary, variables.
--------------------
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of oneās ignorance." ā Confucius
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Interesting stuff LS. What's your take on the Simulation Hypothesis then, and how does consciousness tie into it?
Have you listened or watched any of Tom Campbell's material that I posted in this thread?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
this "misappropriated their metaphysic" type of loss of ones keys should lead to more panic than it does, so maybe it is not such a big deal, merely a glimpse of useful psychological leverage.
also the self is a more approximate imprint in a temporary (life span) mind. the part of self that is visible, is usually contextual. When people seek psychological help I think it is often due to lack of contextual health. trigger management usually before understanding or 'metaphysics'
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Ferdinando
Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,748
|
|
yeah and that is good but circumstances have to be loving and nurturing
sensitive
giving a fuck
feeling
compassionate
looking to
mentally
attentionwise as in caring
understanding
wanting it to proper/perfect
--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Ferdinando]
#27053731 - 11/23/20 10:45 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
@Neil Degrasse Tyson
āItās hard to argue against the possibility that we are all created from some kid in a basementā
Possibility is just the thing. Simulation theory seems to be another iteration of a way to relate to possibility and the unknown. Whether itās God, simulations, spiritual worlds itās a way of characterizing it. Iām not sure why itās mixed in with empiricism that seems like a bit much.
|
skOsH
Functionally dysfunctional
Registered: 07/03/19
Posts: 1,377
Loc: the PNW
Last seen: 2 months, 3 days
|
|
I hate to come here and be the ultimate pessimist, but here goes:
"You" is just your brain assigning itself an identity, with the body.
Everything about you comes from society (your name, accent, language, etc,)
There's nothing there. I wish there was, but I am pretty sure there is not.
Have no fear, death is just the final day. You won't even remember it, it's fine.
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: skOsH]
#27055019 - 11/24/20 07:34 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah we kind of have to generate stuff to be anything. Although that reminds of the psychedelic state Iām not sure if thatās what youāre (skosh) referring to but even in such a state thereās the physicality. Lol Ime itās like being on par with basic physical processes like wind/creek water/plate tectonics
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 7 days, 22 hours
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#27056492 - 11/25/20 01:07 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Warrk said:
It is true that the map is not the territory and that the model is not the reality, just as mathematics is not the phenomenon nor are words the object etc.
When we communicate information we have to be aware that the communication is representational. Everything is metaphor. So "simulation" is a metaphor as is "reality". The 2 are not mutually exclusive though, Campbell in his Theory of Everything is saying that our reality IS a simulation, or can be thought of as a simulation, a virtual reality. What is beyond this reality we may ask? What was before the Big Bang, or before the start of time? We just don't know although there are different ideas but I doubt we can ever test these ideas with experiments.
When we ask what reality is, this is about as deep as we can get and it is no surprise that humanity has been entertaining this for aeons. Even today the jury is not out among physicists as to whether reality is analogue or digital for example, top tier scientist debate the various scenarios and there is no consensus. However, the Simulation Hypothesis is gaining traction and being considered along with all the other models out there.
For me, Campbell's explanation of reality makes sense, it works for me. No doubt it will be further refined as new observations and phenomena have to be accounted for as they arise. Uncertainty is not a bad position to take and at the end of the day the totality of reality is ineffable, it is too complex for our small human minds to comprehend it all, but some stories and some metaphors have a better fit than others.
Nailed it in your opening sentence. I've read Campbell's book as well and I agree with a lot of what he says about reality "rendering" only when observed, etc.
My only gripe is people claiming it's a simulation are indirectly, whether they're conscious of it or not, making a claim that they have access to another level of reality that proves this one isn't the primary one.
That's my gripe.
...AND if you could somehow prove that, how do you avoid infinite regress and prove THAT level isn't also a simulation...? Where is the actual START BASE LEVEL OF REALITY?
These are all questions that are derived from the erroneous contradictory metaphysic of "inside and outside are separated and don't interact at all".
--------------------
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of oneās ignorance." ā Confucius
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Has anyone heard of the game No Man's Sky? Or played it? It is a few years old now:
It touts itself as:
"...a procedurally generated deterministic open world universe, which includes over 18 quintillion planets. Through the game's procedural generation system, planets have their own ecosystems with unique forms of flora and fauna, and various sentient alien species may engage the player in combat or trade within planetary systems."
More about the game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky
The game changer in No Man's Sky is the use of procedural generation. If No Man's Sky's universe comprises 18 quintillion planets you would think there's no way in the world that a team of 10,000 programmers could write the necessary code in one human lifespan if it were not for procedural generation.
Procedural generation explained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: skOsH]
#27080489 - 12/09/20 01:13 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
skOsH said:
I hate to come here and be the ultimate pessimist, but here goes:
"You" is just your brain assigning itself an identity, with the body.
Everything about you comes from society (your name, accent, language, etc,)
There's nothing there. I wish there was, but I am pretty sure there is not.....
. Sounds about right - some people seem to have a desperate urge to find some new insight to adorn their mind with. Seems a sort of addiction. (Reminds me of the birds that collect trash, and put it around their nest area to impress a potential mate. * )
. But this dude in India about 2500 years ago pretty much nailed it when he pointed out that all thoughts based on what may be called "impurity" or "selfishness" that are identified with lead to more of same, and are incapable of leading to permanent satisfaction, therefore they continually result in some sort of frustration or stress.
. This amounts to what could be called moment to moment "reincarnation" of an illusory unhappy self. As this self is illusory, it must be an impersonal process.
. On the other hand almost by definition what are sometimes called: "worldlings" take everything personally. Perhaps those who write journals, and diaries exemplify this process of trying to make 'the self' precious. Birds of a feather flock together and that's just another impersonal process.
. Even thoughts that are not particularly "selfish", that are identified with as being "mine" and therefore defended, by the very act of defense, contribute to the false perception of a 'self' that has a boundary. "Self", boundaries, defense, identification, the feeling of mine, and stress all go together. Its a package deal.
*
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bowerbird+nests&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
Edited by laughingdog (12/09/20 06:53 PM)
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,368
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
|
The final answer has come to me!
You are running your own simulated universe!
Each of us IS running a simulation..
The great question is how do universes interact?
Inside me? Out of me? Etc..
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said:
The final answer has come to me!
You are running your own simulated universe!
Each of us IS running a simulation..
The great question is how do universes interact?
Inside me? Out of me? Etc..
not quite a final or satisfactory answer on 2nd thought is it?
Edited by laughingdog (12/11/20 06:12 PM)
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,368
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
|
Even if your not running the simulation.. you could take the power back to do so.
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said:
Even if your not running the simulation.. you could take the power back to do so.
. Seems 'you' are committed, to an anti Buddhist position, which would of course be the exact opposite - or in other words that: it is precisely the 'self' that 'you' assume has power, that is if not exactly a simulation, is still pretty much characterized as being provisional, relative, interdependent, contingent, unstable and temporary.
. And the words "provisional, relative, interdependent, contingent, unstable and temporary", may also characterize the context (or world) in which the 'self' is provisionally found.
. It might be worth reconsidering, where the preponderance of the evidence lies, as regards anything being totally autonomous, or for that matter being graspable or controllable for any great length of time, or even more radically: certain.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,368
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
|
Well.. at the most minimal.. one might place himself in a position of least suffering in a simulation or not..
Does that ring true about the Buddhist perspective?
|
OutsideOfMyMind
LSD Self Administrative Director
Registered: 10/05/20
Posts: 5,494
Last seen: 7 hours, 42 minutes
|
|
People suffer because they perceive things negatively. There's no objective reality or meaning to the universe, only the meaning we individually assign to it which is different for everyone.
This guy explains it better than me:
Edited by OutsideOfMyMind (12/12/20 11:14 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
I thought suffering was related to clinging
like looping through memories with bad feelings
or obsessing as a way in life.
but also disease, into which category this clinging and looping could fall.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
OutsideOfMyMind
LSD Self Administrative Director
Registered: 10/05/20
Posts: 5,494
Last seen: 7 hours, 42 minutes
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
I thought suffering was related to clinging
like looping through memories with bad feelings
or obsessing as a way in life.
but also disease, into which category this clinging and looping could fall.
It all goes back to perspective. If you perceive the things in your life or memories to be bad or negative then that negativity is going to influence your feelings and your emotions and your output of energy into the universe. The only valid feelings of negativity probably come from abuse.
I think a lot of suffering comes from an inability to see the positives within the negatives.
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
OutsideOfMyMind said:
People suffer because they perceive things negatively. There's no objective reality or meaning to the universe, only the meaning we individually assign to it which is different for everyone.
āscience is the plumbing level of realityā
I think most will come together and agree that there is meaning in bad plumbing. In other words the world provides recommendations I would say. Yet I would agree that objective meaning cannot be absolutely extracted from the plumbing.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
lead I think
bad if it's in the plumbing
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
I don't think there are any levels to reality. It's one unified whole, and anyway the limits of our language are the limits of our world; as Wittgenstein put it. I'd take a kind of solipsitic view on it without pushing it to the extreme.
--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards.
"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27090644 - 12/15/20 02:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Wasnāt Wittgenstein the philosopher that thought philosophy was pointless?
At any rate I think the quote was said in the context where the relationship a rock or chalkboard has with itself for example is not in the same order as the relationship a human being has with itself and that this constitutes different levels of reality. Granted a human being is made out of similar stuff in a fundamental sense but there is the potential for higher order self relationship. You know because science works with the physical and material and this is a level and there is the emotional level you might say where certain entities can become aware or have the capacity for it. Perhaps there is a cerebral level where metaphor and language reside. Perhaps there are other levels that I am not aware of. You would not agree?
Edited by Yellow Pants (12/15/20 02:44 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27091604 - 12/16/20 05:52 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said:
I don't think there are any levels to reality. It's one unified whole, and anyway the limits of our language are the limits of our world...
agree
(not a 'Wittspert', so I did not extend my quoting to include the 3rd party)
keep your language growing!
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
As regards those various posts above mentioning suffering, and its cause:
Shinzen (a vipassana meditation teacher) boils understanding "Suffering" all down to a simple equation:
Pain X Resistance = Suffering
so
10 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 100 units of suffering
100 units of Pain X 0 units of resistance = 0 units of suffering
1 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 10 units of suffering
etc.
. Of course just encountering the formula, won't produce the results that both meditation and working with attempting to put it into practice may eventually.
. However it suggests a way to work with difficult sensations, without getting lost in the terminologies, of psychology, philosophy, and Buddhism. Many of his students have had good results, in dealing with difficult sensations and feelings.
. The concept of differentiating pain or difficult sensations, from one's reaction (suffering) is of course vital. And when "in pain" how finely the awareness has been trained to track such subtleties occurring in present micro second to micro second reality, will likely make a big difference.
Edited by laughingdog (12/16/20 02:15 PM)
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said:
Pain X Resistance = Suffering
so
10 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 100 units of suffering
100 units of Pain X 0 units of resistance = 0 units of suffering
1 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 10 units of suffering
I wonder what in this equation resistance means. A lack of acceptance maybe. Taking the mind away from the painful moment and onto greener pastures. Creating a stiffer contrast in the pain then..
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
in this resistance is defensive identification with the injury, or with the potential injury, instead of a more comprehensive awareness of what is happening in the moment.
i.e. cultivating relaxed open awareness is the opposite of defensive identification (resistance).
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Like getting pissed if you sprain an ankle. HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN !
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
"how could this happen to me! [+ I always fuck up so much]"
rather than
"ankle sprained, apply cold compress and carry on".
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
in this resistance is defensive identification with the injury, or with the potential injury, instead of a more comprehensive awareness of what is happening in the moment.
i.e. cultivating relaxed open awareness is the opposite of defensive identification (resistance).
Sure but very serious pain makes that totally impossible, it will have just about anybody begging on their knees for release without any fancy thoughts about cultivation of awareness.
--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards.
"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27095280 - 12/18/20 04:53 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
that is time for 911, or at least bandages and a splint!
however, clarity and detachment will assure the best outcome, while identification and defensiveness will enable most suffering.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
The higher the pain the more encouraged resistance is.
90 pain x 3 resistance (highly difficult)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
turbocharge the letting go side and you can dial that down a lot
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Seems people are wired to sound the alarm at a high degree of pain for obvious reasons. Yet there is this guy staying zen..
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Quote:
laughingdog said:
Pain X Resistance = Suffering
so
10 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 100 units of suffering
100 units of Pain X 0 units of resistance = 0 units of suffering
1 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 10 units of suffering
I wonder what in this equation resistance means. A lack of acceptance maybe. Taking the mind away from the painful moment and onto greener pastures. Creating a stiffer contrast in the pain then..
. Well a technical answer is resistance means objectifying. And what does that mean? Solidifying a process.
. Also resistance means defining pain as something that shouldn't be happening to me.
. Physiologically these reactions result in tension, which hinders the flow of energy / sensation , from moving, and changing.
. However without practice experimenting with and applying vipassana meditation, on a regular basis this theoretical understanding will most likely do little good, in an emergency when pain goes from a level 2 to 500. It is the same as physical training according to Shinzen, if one hasn't done the weight training or jogging one won't win the race, or do well with a heavy back pack.
. When pain is actually paid close attention to it is discovered that it is not a separate thing, but a process of constantly changing sensations interacting with attention. But of course, the usual reactions of dislike, tension, and objectification, prevent first the making of this discovery and secondly learning to apply it in more and more difficult circumstances.
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Agree with all of it except the meditation bit. I think itās a hair overblown. Just my humble two cents.
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Agree with all of it except the meditation bit. I think itās a hair overblown. Just my humble two cents.
If you don't think meditation is effective for some people, as taught by some other people how do you think the guy in the picture you posted managed to do what he did?
Just by learning a few principles?
Think he was just amusing himself with sexual fantasies all those years spent siting crosslegged?
I imagine most anyone who does meditate, would suspect that you don't want to believe it effective because, you don't want to do it, but some part of you perhaps wonders if you are missing something. Who knows? Not me. Above my pay grade.
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
Trouble with meditation is it's a carrot stick thing just like psychedelics.
--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards.
"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27100347 - 12/21/20 05:55 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
without meditation all of us are just trained idiots
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: laughingdog] 1
#27100458 - 12/21/20 07:58 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said:
If you don't think meditation is effective for some people, as taught by some other people how do you think the guy in the picture you posted managed to do what he did?
Just by learning a few principles?
Think he was just amusing himself with sexual fantasies all those years spent siting crosslegged?
I imagine most anyone who does meditate, would suspect that you don't want to believe it effective because, you don't want to do it, but some part of you perhaps wonders if you are missing something. Who knows? Not me. Above my pay grade.
Two words - favorable genetics
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
without awareness all of us are just trained idiots
There are many ways to cultivate awareness and not all of them are as harsh and demanding or involving of ecstatic states, that's what I'm talking about with meditation being a carrot stick thing. It's more that ecstatic and spiritual states born of it can be just another high to chase. Same goes for experiences where you feel like you have a deeper understanding of things. The famous rabbit hole.
It's a phenomenon I fell prey to, so I have personal experiences of the dangers of it, you are better off going down the pub to blow off a bit of steam than falling into that cycle and that's really what I'd like to highlight. You end up with the inverse effect where you feel less comfortable in your own skin and hold on to pleasures more than before. Looking for a heaven that doesn't really exist except perhaps here and now. Like the red queen always spending up all her energy running only to stay in the same place.
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Quote:
laughingdog said:
If you don't think meditation is effective for some people, as taught by some other people how do you think the guy in the picture you posted managed to do what he did?
Just by learning a few principles?
Think he was just amusing himself with sexual fantasies all those years spent siting crosslegged?
I imagine most anyone who does meditate, would suspect that you don't want to believe it effective because, you don't want to do it, but some part of you perhaps wonders if you are missing something. Who knows? Not me. Above my pay grade.
Two words - favorable genetics
This is a big deal that doesn't often get highlighted enough in the spiritual scene too. You often get people saying "Oh I had such and such a transformative experience doing this or that", then they go off to exhort others into doing it claiming that the results will be the same for them. Even if we trust them that they really have been somehow transformed, it's still very questionable as to whether that is replicable for everyone else.
--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards.
"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27101910 - 12/22/20 01:33 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
if you take martial arts, and ask will they help people who eat at MaDonalds and are 100 or so pounds overweight, the answer is of course no.
But that does not mean others don't get health benefits, and some are able to use them in self defense, but others injure themselves sparing. Never the less some martial arts have some benefits for some people.
Of course if one, is one of those who has been injured sparing, one is more likely to have a bitter attitude. While if one has persisted, overcome injury, or been able to use one's skills, one will likely take a positive view.
But as you say there are no guarantees with most things, and usually one size does not fit all.
. As regards psychedelics, because like many drugs they are generally illegal they attract the rebellious & those with mental problems and the irresponsible, and are often subject to impurities, and also in many countries there is no traditional shamanic guidance -- the result is as you say that many end up more confused.
. But again if one looks at societies where their use is traditional, (like the Huichol, or use of ibogaine in Africa, etc.) the picture is entirely different.
Edited by laughingdog (12/22/20 01:43 AM)
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
One good example of it is that the eight limbs of Yoga starts with Yama and Niyama, and not Asana or Dhyana, it's a progression. Most people these days start with and promote the benefits of the latter and ignore the former. Yet I'd say the latter two are as good as worthless without a firm grounding in the first two (might take some people a year and might take some people a lifetime, some may already be living it from the start) and I'm pretty sure that's true in the thinking of the original teaching also.
Same reason Hinduism has always emphasised Karma Yoga (managing your working life healthily), as the simplest form. As the best method for the common man. And even that is probably more than most can manage within the sickness of modern society.
--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards.
"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"
Edited by Grapefruit (12/22/20 05:37 AM)
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27106037 - 12/24/20 03:13 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
indeed
not your mother's yoga
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sadhu&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
--------------------------
How To Meditate VI - Meditation Practice and Daily Life
1-to 1:50 start of Buddhist version of Yama and Niyama, to support meditation, (whole video is about 8 1/2 minutes).
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 7 days, 22 hours
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#27109944 - 12/27/20 01:23 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Where is the "OG" or "A1" "universe", and how do we know that it's the actual primary one?
--------------------
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of oneās ignorance." ā Confucius
|
Warrk
Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,644
|
|
Is this addressed to me LS? I have no idea. But if I were to guess I would say it is all relative, reality depends on your frame of reference.
You are living this life is this body on this planet in this virtual reality and that is what matters for now. When you are reincarnated in a different life with a different body in a different virtual reality than that is what is real and primary. The "universe" you are in is merely the setting in which the gameplay is conducted.
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#27112236 - 12/28/20 12:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If we are here now - which I assume we are, at minimum I am, then we arenāt somewhere else. Therefore the OG is āsomewhere elseā which provides sufficient description
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
As creatures of reason we examine evidence.
As immature creatures of emotion (kids) we try to alway get our way.
As creatures of reason we know, now, that all of perceived "reality" is only an approximate model in our brain, distorted further by our biases. In reality of course it is dark inside the skull ! 
But we also know, a lot about evolution, and how our human brains evolved.
So yes on the one hand its all a bunch of simulations, and as social creatures, we assume our agreed upon perceptions tell the whole story, (which of course they don't).
. But on the other hand as creatures of reason we also know not to be megalomaniacs, and assume others are just figments of our imagination.
. That would be psychopathic and selfish. Generally anybody that acts that selfishly, ends up in "shit creak" if they ever need help.
This tends to decrease indulgence in such nonsense.
(However, strangely, POTUS seems to be an exception, (of course all the pardons and favors to the rich, are a form of insurance for times of need); otherwise he too would have to pay the price of megalomania.)
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said:
As creatures of reason we examine evidence.
As immature creatures of emotion (kids) we try to alway get our way.
Thereās something about this claim that ought to be hotly contested. Iām not sure why you equate children with emotion.
It might be that emotion is what informs me to help a crippled lady across the street. Otherwise why bother if my being wasnāt in some illogical way manipulated by the situation? The simulation might be tossed aside as something moot without an emotional presence. Granted itās connected- reason, emotion, physicality but relegating emotion to children is something I CANNOT STAND FOR
Edited by Yellow Pants (12/28/20 02:03 PM)
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,368
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
|
So the question is..
Can we ascertain how much freedom we have.. so that if we are living in a simulation.. we know how to act..
|
laughingdog
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,830
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Iām not sure why you equate children with emotion.
Whatever...it seemed to fit at the time...there are some reasons to do so...
but the main point I was making was not dependent on whether one thinks, this true or false, or could be turned into a paragraph if writing a book.
. The main point is quite simple. It is simply noted that societies, especially ones that are close to nature, for good reasons do not encourage deviant behavior, particularly if based on the selfish idea that others are imaginary.
. My stating this, is really nothing new or radical. It is more of a simple reminder to those, who get lost in flights of fantasy. Since it is something we all already know, there seems little reason to go into more and more detail in this regard.
. Once people stop to think about the ramifications of this line of thought, one assumes the momentary infatuation with what seemed an exciting idea: namely that the universe maybe 'simulated' loses its false charm.
|
Yellow Pants
Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Itās a reasonable assertion that societies āother peopleā do not encourage deviant behavior based on the premise that they are fictitious.
But this is about the idea of whether we are living in a simulation or not. If I am imaginary then so are you. Who said anything about deviancy? Granted in the video game Grand Theft Auto due to its fictional nature deviancy abounds but I think this is because the game is wired in a way that encourages it. Hypothetically do you agree that life being a simulation encourages deviant behavior?
|
Mr. D Green
Stranger
Registered: 12/14/19
Posts: 179
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#27117141 - 12/30/20 09:33 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why I think it is interesting is because it helps explain personal experiences that I cannot otherwise figure out. Why do we feel, see and experience a different realm of existence when we're tripping balls? What are these other beings/entities that appear in our altered states of consciousness?
When your "tripping balls"...your body's natural state of senses are changed...when you fuck with your conscious and subconscious, your just changing the current flow of your thinking...it's like saying why does staring at the ocean from a high above cliff make these up lifting energies surge through my body...or why does eating certain things make me able to see ghosts...dont over think stuff or let others over think for you...were not stationary statues..everything you do changes your current state of being..were highly evolved organisms..
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
|
I like "don't let others over think for you" but how do you know what they are thinking?
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Ferdinando
Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,748
|
|
so do your best because we are surrounded by people who affect us
--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Ferdinando]
#27117759 - 12/31/20 08:29 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
hopefully what is inside other peoples minds does not fall out all over the floor.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
Ferdinando
Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,748
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Ferdinando] 1
#27117764 - 12/31/20 08:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
it easily cascades into too much drugs and violence
we feel our future
if I do this
so what happens must be of as high a qaulity
not running away is hugely beneficial
they really do take away
so keep the work there
and the positive pursuits
and don't let it cascade into more drugs
and especially not violence
you can see what is happening see/feel it
so be serious be honest
don't be a victim of working less and destroying more
--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,170
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Ferdinando]
#27117846 - 12/31/20 09:27 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
anyway,
the present is full of all you need
don't worry about impacts in the future now that you understand,
focus on the world and what ferdinando is doing.
--------------------
_ š§ _
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
kaiowas
ralphserket
Sclorch
Cognitive_Shift
HagbardCeline
poke smot!
deCypher