I was 8 hours deep in a drinking/smoking session the other night and randomly watched a YouTube video of Trump making a speech and after laughing my ass off and considering how ridiculous all of it is I realized whoever runs this simulation knows we're onto them and is just seeing how far they can push it
Posts archived: 81 / 81 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Edit: just to be clear im not trying to push any political belief, as a rule I don't even bother voting. I just find Trump to be hilarious
Edit: whoops meant to hit edit not quote lol
Edit: whoops meant to hit edit not quote lol
R+ for the TL;DR also, I hope it's not a simulation.
I'm afraid i think its unlikely that its not, When you take 'simulation' in the broad sense of the word... Some would say we have evidence in the fact that mass is generated by interaction... Along with a few other bits too... this quote does not necessarily say enough. It was near to hand.
'The Higgs boson does not technically give other particles mass. More precisely, the particle is a quantized manifestation of a field (the Higgs field) that generates mass through its interaction with other particles.'
Even if we propose that God used his almighty powers to create the universe as the Christians believe, Does that not then mean the universe is being or was simulated by this god figure.
We have many ways of 'simulating' reality.. we write books, draw pictures, we have cameras. We use measuring tapes to make sure our simulations match the scale of the 'real world' Our thoughts themselves, particularly imagination.... Its simulated.... and that goes further....
So i can imagine an apple... the apple is not 'real' in the sense it exists with mass in the shared reality. It is a 'real' thought though.. And its simulated.. Everything we have that even closely resembles reality is simulated.... And then there is how the brain seems to work...
Everything we perceive seems to be a re-compiled simulated version of whatever it is we take the sensory data from... So even if the reality we experience... even if it is 'real' and not 'simulated'... its almost certainty that all our thoughts memories etc etc... are all generated from our personal simulations... We have 2 eyes, both take 2d data, the brain uses that data to form one 3d environment... the eyes aren't looking at it all all the time. The brain stores a chunk of that data and uses it to fill in areas. What we perceive is potentially very different to what is there.
Anyways... before i go off on more tangents... For me, the problem with the argument that we are in a 'base reality' as opposed to a simulated one.... We have no descriptions on how a base reality can actually exist. We can assume there is one... but the numbers are not good... Seems we'll likely be able to make well over 1 trillion equally detailed but simulated realities... long before we can produce an actual one. It also looks like it will be very easy to convince individuals that the simulated reality is base reality... Especially if those individuals were generated beings within it... but thats another story..
So we have trillion to one odds... 1 possible base reality... 1 trillion simulated ones (very likely).... and its also very likely all the simulated ones could potentially be perceived as the base reality... (memory alteration)
Sorry if its not what ya wanted to read.. But for me, 'Simulated' doesn't mean scary, wrong, hard to deal with.... i mean its exactly the same reality we had yesterday. Still dinosaur fossils out there, and pyramids.... If anything, it just means our reality is potentially bigger and more varied than we first thought. Not just extra terrestrials... but it'd give strong credence to 'inter-dimensional' beings? though tbh.. not the right words... But i'll assume you get what i mean.
'The Higgs boson does not technically give other particles mass. More precisely, the particle is a quantized manifestation of a field (the Higgs field) that generates mass through its interaction with other particles.'
Even if we propose that God used his almighty powers to create the universe as the Christians believe, Does that not then mean the universe is being or was simulated by this god figure.
We have many ways of 'simulating' reality.. we write books, draw pictures, we have cameras. We use measuring tapes to make sure our simulations match the scale of the 'real world' Our thoughts themselves, particularly imagination.... Its simulated.... and that goes further....
So i can imagine an apple... the apple is not 'real' in the sense it exists with mass in the shared reality. It is a 'real' thought though.. And its simulated.. Everything we have that even closely resembles reality is simulated.... And then there is how the brain seems to work...
Everything we perceive seems to be a re-compiled simulated version of whatever it is we take the sensory data from... So even if the reality we experience... even if it is 'real' and not 'simulated'... its almost certainty that all our thoughts memories etc etc... are all generated from our personal simulations... We have 2 eyes, both take 2d data, the brain uses that data to form one 3d environment... the eyes aren't looking at it all all the time. The brain stores a chunk of that data and uses it to fill in areas. What we perceive is potentially very different to what is there.
Anyways... before i go off on more tangents... For me, the problem with the argument that we are in a 'base reality' as opposed to a simulated one.... We have no descriptions on how a base reality can actually exist. We can assume there is one... but the numbers are not good... Seems we'll likely be able to make well over 1 trillion equally detailed but simulated realities... long before we can produce an actual one. It also looks like it will be very easy to convince individuals that the simulated reality is base reality... Especially if those individuals were generated beings within it... but thats another story..
So we have trillion to one odds... 1 possible base reality... 1 trillion simulated ones (very likely).... and its also very likely all the simulated ones could potentially be perceived as the base reality... (memory alteration)
Sorry if its not what ya wanted to read.. But for me, 'Simulated' doesn't mean scary, wrong, hard to deal with.... i mean its exactly the same reality we had yesterday. Still dinosaur fossils out there, and pyramids.... If anything, it just means our reality is potentially bigger and more varied than we first thought. Not just extra terrestrials... but it'd give strong credence to 'inter-dimensional' beings? though tbh.. not the right words... But i'll assume you get what i mean.
Don't ever walk out in front of a moving bus then "Realist", because the reality is it's not a simulation, it's a real bus. Doesn't matter how you perceive it, it will smash into you xD
Also, have you heard the good news, my friend?
Also, have you heard the good news, my friend?
Jesus 2.0 has arrived?
And simulated buses can splat simulated people just like real ones splat real people >_<
And simulated buses can splat simulated people just like real ones splat real people >_<
spend an hour convincing yourself this entire reality is a sim, and you'll find out you feel relaxed.
The tomb where Jesus was buried, in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (a well knew jewish politician at the time) was reported empty! Just as He said, on the third day He will be risen! Good news indeed for you and for all of us
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
p.s Apples are real
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
p.s Apples are real
We could use a philosophy subforum. Do you agree?
https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=4&t=16154433&b=0&a=0
https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=4&t=16154433&b=0&a=0
Mentions: A philosophy subforum
It is disappointing to see a religious debate here. This is the science forum.
I'm sure Realist would not waste his time trying to change minds in the "Jesus Saved us All" thread.
I don't understand why religious people would be offended by the idea of a simulation anyway. Most people believe in an eternal afterlife (a prime reality/more important reality) and that we are all experiencing a less important, subordinate and temporary reality. To say this isn't a simulation is not much different from saying there is no afterlife. Your religion is unharmed by talk of simulations. You are only arguing about the vocabulary used to describe nearly the same thing which both the scientist and faithful believe.
P.S. God may be good, but is not required for good to exist. Kindness does not require religious faith.
I'm sure Realist would not waste his time trying to change minds in the "Jesus Saved us All" thread.
I don't understand why religious people would be offended by the idea of a simulation anyway. Most people believe in an eternal afterlife (a prime reality/more important reality) and that we are all experiencing a less important, subordinate and temporary reality. To say this isn't a simulation is not much different from saying there is no afterlife. Your religion is unharmed by talk of simulations. You are only arguing about the vocabulary used to describe nearly the same thing which both the scientist and faithful believe.
P.S. God may be good, but is not required for good to exist. Kindness does not require religious faith.
Not maybe, He is good. As Harvard psychology professor Robert Coles put it: "All the writings on ethics over the past 2000 years are simply footnotes to the sermon on the mount. You read Matthew 5, 6, and 7. That was an ethical genius who spoke those words.
Not offended by the idea, but yes believing we are just in a video game that some kid is playing in his mother's basement is vastly different than actual reality. Reality in which some consequences have real implications (i.e murder, sexual assault, walking in front of a moving bus, etc).
I agree that kindness doesn't require faith in God. All my atheist friends are upstanding, moral people. The point I try to get across to them is though that those morals they hold so tightly to have no basis. That if there is no mind prior to the human mind (God) to define and create those ideas of right/wrong, good/evil, then it is the human mind who defines them (or the government, state, group).
Therefore, if one individual says racism is ok and the other individual says it's not ok, nobody's right, nobody"s wrong. It's just a matter of taste. It's a choice. Nothing is absolute, it is relative. You can see how that breaks down quite quickly (see history, lol).
That was MLKs' whole argument against segregation in the south. There is a law above the law of the state of Alabama that says racism is absolutely wrong/evil. That was Andrew Jacksons' argument against the Nazi war criminal lawyers who thought they had a good case to deter the due justice against them. Jackson stood up and said the same thing. It didn't matter what the Nazi government told those soldiers to do, gassing Jews is never good, it is always evil. Justice was served.
Not offended by the idea, but yes believing we are just in a video game that some kid is playing in his mother's basement is vastly different than actual reality. Reality in which some consequences have real implications (i.e murder, sexual assault, walking in front of a moving bus, etc).
I agree that kindness doesn't require faith in God. All my atheist friends are upstanding, moral people. The point I try to get across to them is though that those morals they hold so tightly to have no basis. That if there is no mind prior to the human mind (God) to define and create those ideas of right/wrong, good/evil, then it is the human mind who defines them (or the government, state, group).
Therefore, if one individual says racism is ok and the other individual says it's not ok, nobody's right, nobody"s wrong. It's just a matter of taste. It's a choice. Nothing is absolute, it is relative. You can see how that breaks down quite quickly (see history, lol).
That was MLKs' whole argument against segregation in the south. There is a law above the law of the state of Alabama that says racism is absolutely wrong/evil. That was Andrew Jacksons' argument against the Nazi war criminal lawyers who thought they had a good case to deter the due justice against them. Jackson stood up and said the same thing. It didn't matter what the Nazi government told those soldiers to do, gassing Jews is never good, it is always evil. Justice was served.
He's been following me a while. Won't answer my turnip question. So i have come to decide he is not friend. Friends are nice to each other. He is evasive, pushy and mean. Imma ignore and attack him... maybe jesus will find me then...
Ok, time for my take on this.
A classic question following yours:
If you knew somehow, by seeing into the future or by having received a vision from a higher power etc.., that the ONLY chance you had to prevent a dictator assuming power, waging war and killing millions in the future, would be to kill him now as a child, would you do it?
Would you say to the people who don't have it in their hearts to do that, that they are wrong?
Or are those who decided to spare millions, wrong?
Don't you think that Hitler thought that the Jews were evil for whatever reason and needed to be brought to justice? The reason people usually do what he did though is actually pretty sad (trauma, sorrow or madness) and I sympathise with them.
I am also curious about what you know about the Taoist approach to morality (which is older than 2000 years)?
Here's a chapter from the Tao Te Ching and a few quotes of Lao Tzu:
"When goodness is lost, there is morality."
“The moral man does something, and when no one responds he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.”
Here are a few good videos (a bit overlapping) about an Indian guru explaining his understanding of morality:
Humanity?, Yes! Morality, No! | Sadhguru
The Circus of Morality | Sadhguru
...And if you talk about absolute morals and truth, then you'd still end up with the same question: Who's interpretation of it? I am sure we agree that the actions of the Catholic church haven't exactly had the best results with their interpretations (*cough* crusades), yet it is from them, that we originally got the bible and all the stories about God and Jesus, before the church was divided. You should also consider that the bible has been translated many times by different authors, possibly losing a lot of it's meaning in the process, and that even the original bible takes inspiration starting from Judaism all the way to Sumerian myths and legends. So what do we really know?
And in case you are wondering: I do know about the testimonies of people who have met or seen 'God' or a messiah figure through a mystical experience or by the use of psychedelics, but these experiences are not unique to Christianity. There are similar accounts from all over the world, from every culture. Maybe, if we look at what's common among these experiences, then we can start understanding the nature of reality and illusion. And many people have done so, for example, you could look up Alan Watts' lectures, they are very entertaining.
Also, I think the idea of the world being a simulation or god inhabiting a turnip doesn't have to contradict anything that a religion is claiming.
A classic question following yours:
If you knew somehow, by seeing into the future or by having received a vision from a higher power etc.., that the ONLY chance you had to prevent a dictator assuming power, waging war and killing millions in the future, would be to kill him now as a child, would you do it?
Would you say to the people who don't have it in their hearts to do that, that they are wrong?
Or are those who decided to spare millions, wrong?
Don't you think that Hitler thought that the Jews were evil for whatever reason and needed to be brought to justice? The reason people usually do what he did though is actually pretty sad (trauma, sorrow or madness) and I sympathise with them.
I am also curious about what you know about the Taoist approach to morality (which is older than 2000 years)?
Here's a chapter from the Tao Te Ching and a few quotes of Lao Tzu:
"When goodness is lost, there is morality."
“The moral man does something, and when no one responds he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.”
Here are a few good videos (a bit overlapping) about an Indian guru explaining his understanding of morality:
Humanity?, Yes! Morality, No! | Sadhguru
The Circus of Morality | Sadhguru
...And if you talk about absolute morals and truth, then you'd still end up with the same question: Who's interpretation of it? I am sure we agree that the actions of the Catholic church haven't exactly had the best results with their interpretations (*cough* crusades), yet it is from them, that we originally got the bible and all the stories about God and Jesus, before the church was divided. You should also consider that the bible has been translated many times by different authors, possibly losing a lot of it's meaning in the process, and that even the original bible takes inspiration starting from Judaism all the way to Sumerian myths and legends. So what do we really know?
And in case you are wondering: I do know about the testimonies of people who have met or seen 'God' or a messiah figure through a mystical experience or by the use of psychedelics, but these experiences are not unique to Christianity. There are similar accounts from all over the world, from every culture. Maybe, if we look at what's common among these experiences, then we can start understanding the nature of reality and illusion. And many people have done so, for example, you could look up Alan Watts' lectures, they are very entertaining.
Also, I think the idea of the world being a simulation or god inhabiting a turnip doesn't have to contradict anything that a religion is claiming.
I feel context is lost on the turnip thing... the discussion went as follows.
not me - God is all mighty, Jesus will save you, Here are some videos about the second coming of jesus and a few other things.
me - Ah, so God can be in a human?
not me -Yes,
me - So i might be jesus 2.0?
not me - No, you'd know about it
me - Well i think i might be, maybe jesus had doubts too
not me - jesus was god and he'd know
me - could god possess a turnip if he wanted to
not me - .....................
its been several days now... he set me on this quest for knowledge... this quest for truth, meaning and purpose... only to starve me of the information i require to further my comprehension of beloved jesus... Alas, i may never know... i may forever keep searching... hoping to prove i'm not jesus (in all honesty, some people win the lottery, i'm worried i might be him... i mean 7 billion people... 3.5 boys... .5 bil of those are too old to be resurrected.... if 'he's' alive today, odds are not in may favor...
And nice quotes and stuff. Imma look too if you don't mind.
not me - God is all mighty, Jesus will save you, Here are some videos about the second coming of jesus and a few other things.
me - Ah, so God can be in a human?
not me -Yes,
me - So i might be jesus 2.0?
not me - No, you'd know about it
me - Well i think i might be, maybe jesus had doubts too
not me - jesus was god and he'd know
me - could god possess a turnip if he wanted to
not me - .....................
its been several days now... he set me on this quest for knowledge... this quest for truth, meaning and purpose... only to starve me of the information i require to further my comprehension of beloved jesus... Alas, i may never know... i may forever keep searching... hoping to prove i'm not jesus (in all honesty, some people win the lottery, i'm worried i might be him... i mean 7 billion people... 3.5 boys... .5 bil of those are too old to be resurrected.... if 'he's' alive today, odds are not in may favor...
And nice quotes and stuff. Imma look too if you don't mind.
To the first question: The commandment "Do not kill" in it's original greek is read "Do not murder". Murder is killing out of anger, jealousy, greed. So to answer that question: If you and me walk into a McDonalds and we see there is a gunman mowing down innocent people. I hit him high, you hit him low, and we break his neck in the process. I would argue that was killing, not murder, to preserve innocent lives. It was not a sin to kill this man. I'm sure we can agree on that.
To your second question regarding morality: Anthropology shows us that all around the world, it's like we're reading off the same sheet of music. Murder is wrong, Lying is wrong, Stealing is wrong, Adultery is wrong, etc. It's because we all have something called a conscience. It's the smoke detector that goes off inside us and tells us to, through the feeling of guilt, "Wake up and smell the coffee, you've done wrong!".
It's very important to understand that a conscience can be seared/suppressed. For example: Nazi SS soldiers were given a german shephard puppy at the start of their basic training. They were told to bond with these puppies and care for them. When the time came and the order was given they were then told to kill these dogs with their bare hands by snapping its neck. Another example: How violent is television these days compared to the past? The average person who watches TV these days is subjected to countless murders, ****s, vulgarity, sexuality, among other quite grotesque evils.
As for the interpretation of the bible: The catholic church is not biblical christianity. It is roman paganism under the guise of christianity. After the death and resurrection of christ, christianity spread like wildfire around the known world and began to spread into the roman empire. The roman elite didn't like this too much and christians were slaughtered, fed to the lions, doused with tar and lit aflame to light the emperors garden. However, they couldn't stop the spread of these christians. So, they used fifth column tactics. That is they took their rituals and gods and simply gave them a christian guise. This plan worked and eventually led to what we now know as the dark ages. Biblical christianity was corrupted through manipulation, torture, and bribes. No doubt, the catholic church has tainted the image of christ harshly, which is sad indeed. We do not get the new testament canon we have today from the catholic church. We get it from the eyewitness community, or by someone who'd been approved by an eyewitness. (John, Matthew, James, Peter, Mark (knew eyewitness), Luke (knew eyewitness/meticulous historian I might add).
Some links to short videos discussing the difference between the two faiths:
https://youtu.be/33IqqgyEKGQ
https://youtu.be/221sYyagu2I
If I haven't answered any of you're original questions I must rest my fingers for a bit. Thank you for your sincerity in your search for truth. I would be pleased to continue this discussion. Cheers!
To your second question regarding morality: Anthropology shows us that all around the world, it's like we're reading off the same sheet of music. Murder is wrong, Lying is wrong, Stealing is wrong, Adultery is wrong, etc. It's because we all have something called a conscience. It's the smoke detector that goes off inside us and tells us to, through the feeling of guilt, "Wake up and smell the coffee, you've done wrong!".
It's very important to understand that a conscience can be seared/suppressed. For example: Nazi SS soldiers were given a german shephard puppy at the start of their basic training. They were told to bond with these puppies and care for them. When the time came and the order was given they were then told to kill these dogs with their bare hands by snapping its neck. Another example: How violent is television these days compared to the past? The average person who watches TV these days is subjected to countless murders, ****s, vulgarity, sexuality, among other quite grotesque evils.
As for the interpretation of the bible: The catholic church is not biblical christianity. It is roman paganism under the guise of christianity. After the death and resurrection of christ, christianity spread like wildfire around the known world and began to spread into the roman empire. The roman elite didn't like this too much and christians were slaughtered, fed to the lions, doused with tar and lit aflame to light the emperors garden. However, they couldn't stop the spread of these christians. So, they used fifth column tactics. That is they took their rituals and gods and simply gave them a christian guise. This plan worked and eventually led to what we now know as the dark ages. Biblical christianity was corrupted through manipulation, torture, and bribes. No doubt, the catholic church has tainted the image of christ harshly, which is sad indeed. We do not get the new testament canon we have today from the catholic church. We get it from the eyewitness community, or by someone who'd been approved by an eyewitness. (John, Matthew, James, Peter, Mark (knew eyewitness), Luke (knew eyewitness/meticulous historian I might add).
Some links to short videos discussing the difference between the two faiths:
https://youtu.be/33IqqgyEKGQ
https://youtu.be/221sYyagu2I
If I haven't answered any of you're original questions I must rest my fingers for a bit. Thank you for your sincerity in your search for truth. I would be pleased to continue this discussion. Cheers!
I'll reply to the original post instead, because I'd rather continue the discussion with -sketch- in another thread + I am still waiting for a complete answer from him. Anyway, some ideas about reality:
If you consider that all that you perceive as reality, is just your 5+ senses receiving signals that get interpreted by the brain, then it is really your brain that creates this reality. And if you go deeper, you see that the senses along with any "external" signals themselves might just be a construct of your brain. I mean, how can you prove that they're coming from somewhere outside the brain itself? And since god and all other people can only exist in your brain now, we can follow this line of thought even further.
If we consider, that what we call consciousness, persists after the death of the physical body too, because the body is yet again something we perceive to exist, then we can make a very curious observation indeed. You, as a separate entity, don't exist, because there is no other outside of you to define you. So we are left with the conclusion that reality is an all-encompassing infinite consciousness and every person is just one piece of that total experience, sometimes manifesting as physical (although physical and non-physical are irrelevant terms at this point). When we now say that consciousness is actually just attention itself, pure attention - or focus, then it is enough to shift it to become another piece/experience of the whole.
(I don't know how much of that made sense or whether this reasoning was any good.)
In fact, this is what the hindus refer to as "God playing hide-and-seek with itself", but at this point it seems irrelevant what you call this thing: God, simulation, the process, the Tao, life, universe etc... In the end these are just labels.
If you consider that all that you perceive as reality, is just your 5+ senses receiving signals that get interpreted by the brain, then it is really your brain that creates this reality. And if you go deeper, you see that the senses along with any "external" signals themselves might just be a construct of your brain. I mean, how can you prove that they're coming from somewhere outside the brain itself? And since god and all other people can only exist in your brain now, we can follow this line of thought even further.
If we consider, that what we call consciousness, persists after the death of the physical body too, because the body is yet again something we perceive to exist, then we can make a very curious observation indeed. You, as a separate entity, don't exist, because there is no other outside of you to define you. So we are left with the conclusion that reality is an all-encompassing infinite consciousness and every person is just one piece of that total experience, sometimes manifesting as physical (although physical and non-physical are irrelevant terms at this point). When we now say that consciousness is actually just attention itself, pure attention - or focus, then it is enough to shift it to become another piece/experience of the whole.
(I don't know how much of that made sense or whether this reasoning was any good.)
In fact, this is what the hindus refer to as "God playing hide-and-seek with itself", but at this point it seems irrelevant what you call this thing: God, simulation, the process, the Tao, life, universe etc... In the end these are just labels.
Some labels have the power to change an individuals perception, even potentially against their will... 'just labels'?.... i think labels are maybe the best thing we have. The power to bridge and patch comprehension! tbh... i'm not sure we have much else
I don't think it is likely we'll ever 'know' 'what' we are... But i think we are getting far more 'realistic' with our assumptions on what we might be.
Even a divine experience, One where the self is filled with an absolute knowing of a oneness with the self, the universe and even 'god'.... Could just be a symptom of the mind failing. A break down of the ability to rationalize.. leading to the perception that all things are true... Remnants of logic could then say something like... if i know that all things i know are true... then i must know all things and must be connected with, or maybe even be this god thing i learnt about..
So.. the chance of perceiving a divine occurrence is probably more likely than a divine occurrence happening 'for real' Obviously you could also propose that this experience was even potentially fabricated and implanted, also adding weight to the chance any divine experience has alternative explanations. Not saying it might not be possible either way..
I'd like to propose that maybe the brain comes after the thinking... bear with me.... On our computer, the processing is done in the chip.... but its easy to put up a representation of those processes on the screen... it can be handy to do this... but it is not required... It would be easy to assume that fits the thing thinking... its in sync with 'thought' and there is nothing else close to similar... What if the brain is just simulated to represent our thoughts? for the purpose of interface as opposed to it being the occurrence of consciousness 'generation'
Frankly... i have heard a lot about generators... but have never been impressed, besides the big bang and maybe one or two other things... all these 'generators' just look like converters to me, Only ever changing something from one form to another. Actually generating something new from nothing.... yeah... its not something i have seen much of... Why'd we assume the brain manages it?
Just saying... even some of what we see as 'safe assumptions' or even 'knowledge'.... Personally... i think real comprehension actually repels 'knowing' and accepts all is assumption. >_<
I don't think it is likely we'll ever 'know' 'what' we are... But i think we are getting far more 'realistic' with our assumptions on what we might be.
Even a divine experience, One where the self is filled with an absolute knowing of a oneness with the self, the universe and even 'god'.... Could just be a symptom of the mind failing. A break down of the ability to rationalize.. leading to the perception that all things are true... Remnants of logic could then say something like... if i know that all things i know are true... then i must know all things and must be connected with, or maybe even be this god thing i learnt about..
So.. the chance of perceiving a divine occurrence is probably more likely than a divine occurrence happening 'for real' Obviously you could also propose that this experience was even potentially fabricated and implanted, also adding weight to the chance any divine experience has alternative explanations. Not saying it might not be possible either way..
I'd like to propose that maybe the brain comes after the thinking... bear with me.... On our computer, the processing is done in the chip.... but its easy to put up a representation of those processes on the screen... it can be handy to do this... but it is not required... It would be easy to assume that fits the thing thinking... its in sync with 'thought' and there is nothing else close to similar... What if the brain is just simulated to represent our thoughts? for the purpose of interface as opposed to it being the occurrence of consciousness 'generation'
Frankly... i have heard a lot about generators... but have never been impressed, besides the big bang and maybe one or two other things... all these 'generators' just look like converters to me, Only ever changing something from one form to another. Actually generating something new from nothing.... yeah... its not something i have seen much of... Why'd we assume the brain manages it?
Just saying... even some of what we see as 'safe assumptions' or even 'knowledge'.... Personally... i think real comprehension actually repels 'knowing' and accepts all is assumption. >_<
I usually imagine that the representation of our thoughts "on screen" are the words we use when thinking. I can still recall a time as a small child, when I used to think more "directly" - or in shapes rather than thinking in words. I remember there being studies which show that a signal corresponding to a thought or action is created 10 seconds before a person "thinks" it, which would suggest that we have some really long wires ;D.
There's this idea I like - about the brain being an antenna that can tune in to certain thoughts or consciousness which actually reside somewhere else, or everywhere, like a background field - kind of similar to the concept of zero point energy or the Akashic records.
I wonder how dreams fit into the simulation. They seem to have a logic of their own, or you could say that they are a very vivid imagination. Then again, I could try to argue that the wake reality is also a subconscious imagination, except there are blockers in place which make it hard to go against the "rules" of nature.. or something like that.
Also, absolutely agree with your last point there.
There's this idea I like - about the brain being an antenna that can tune in to certain thoughts or consciousness which actually reside somewhere else, or everywhere, like a background field - kind of similar to the concept of zero point energy or the Akashic records.
I wonder how dreams fit into the simulation. They seem to have a logic of their own, or you could say that they are a very vivid imagination. Then again, I could try to argue that the wake reality is also a subconscious imagination, except there are blockers in place which make it hard to go against the "rules" of nature.. or something like that.
Also, absolutely agree with your last point there.
Mixed thoughts which are inspired previous comments in this thread:
Philosophy:
Determinism = All your base are belong to us. The only hope for free will to exist is the possibility of truly random events at the quantum level. Even if there are random events undermining determinism, does randomness actually equate to free will? It is dubious.
Brains:
We think we make decisions consciously, but careful study has shown that the actual order of operations is that our subconscious makes the decision, then our brain interprets a justification for the decision, then we "make our decision" consciously. We believe that the justification process was the decision process.
Yes, our brain processes inputs, and interprets/skews those inputs for our convenience. Nothing we perceive is exactly accurate. One can say that we are always hallucinating. My meaning is that it is not possible for a human to experience unaltered signals. We have pre-processors which modify what our eyes and ears see and hear.
Religion:
An emotional god is a terrifying idea. God is pleased? God is angry? Such a god might erase us from his whiteboard in a tiff and start over.
I am so small and unimportant in the scale of the universe that I would be suspicious of any god which "cared" about me. It would be like me caring about the behavior of a specific amoeba living 1000s of miles away. For me to care about the amoeba would require me to be closer to the amoeba's level.
I am too humble to take a firm position on religion vs atheism vs simulation. My mind is not capable of understanding the universe. I am only smart enough to know I am NOT smart enough. In simpler terms, I am not smart enough to pick the correct religion. I think demonstrating so much arrogance as to think I am *right* about something so important might be equivalent to committing the sin of pride.
My personal path was from religion to agnosticism to the cusp of atheism, then... The concept of a simulation brought me back to agnosticism and here I shall stay. Yep, in a simulation, any of the world religions might be correct depending on the parameters of our creator.
I will just try to be a good person and hope for a good outcome.
Philosophy:
Determinism = All your base are belong to us. The only hope for free will to exist is the possibility of truly random events at the quantum level. Even if there are random events undermining determinism, does randomness actually equate to free will? It is dubious.
Brains:
We think we make decisions consciously, but careful study has shown that the actual order of operations is that our subconscious makes the decision, then our brain interprets a justification for the decision, then we "make our decision" consciously. We believe that the justification process was the decision process.
Yes, our brain processes inputs, and interprets/skews those inputs for our convenience. Nothing we perceive is exactly accurate. One can say that we are always hallucinating. My meaning is that it is not possible for a human to experience unaltered signals. We have pre-processors which modify what our eyes and ears see and hear.
Religion:
An emotional god is a terrifying idea. God is pleased? God is angry? Such a god might erase us from his whiteboard in a tiff and start over.
I am so small and unimportant in the scale of the universe that I would be suspicious of any god which "cared" about me. It would be like me caring about the behavior of a specific amoeba living 1000s of miles away. For me to care about the amoeba would require me to be closer to the amoeba's level.
I am too humble to take a firm position on religion vs atheism vs simulation. My mind is not capable of understanding the universe. I am only smart enough to know I am NOT smart enough. In simpler terms, I am not smart enough to pick the correct religion. I think demonstrating so much arrogance as to think I am *right* about something so important might be equivalent to committing the sin of pride.
My personal path was from religion to agnosticism to the cusp of atheism, then... The concept of a simulation brought me back to agnosticism and here I shall stay. Yep, in a simulation, any of the world religions might be correct depending on the parameters of our creator.
I will just try to be a good person and hope for a good outcome.
Maybe its like incubation. This reality is the safety of the egg and dreams/imagination are the emergence of personal reality manifestation. Maybe we evolve to have biological augmented reality? >_< lots of possibilities
couldn't find the article i remember, but this is some of the concepts i think you'll find may support your radio channel tuning idea.
So channeling? Do you think an individual can change the frequency they tune into? I do... not gonna claim to know about any other worldly entities... But consciousness as a transmitted signal as opposed to generated from sparkly bits in a wet blob.... i'm happy to entertain the idea
couldn't find the article i remember, but this is some of the concepts i think you'll find may support your radio channel tuning idea.
So channeling? Do you think an individual can change the frequency they tune into? I do... not gonna claim to know about any other worldly entities... But consciousness as a transmitted signal as opposed to generated from sparkly bits in a wet blob.... i'm happy to entertain the idea