Simulation Theory and The Theory that Nothing Exists

[Skepdick]

No But they are contradictory to themselves. And therefore not capable of comparison with each other.

Obviously, ignoramus. Self-reference causes contradictions in every logic.

The only way to solve this is to give up the idea of "self". Are you willing to pay the price? Tell us that you don't exist.

non-existence actually exists

Contradiction

No they do not. Having no memory of a previous state is not the same as having a memory of not existing.

Contradiction!!!! Run for the hills. The world is coming to an end!



So, uh, what do you make of having the concept of "having no memory"? Sure seems like the non-existence of memory exists in your memory.

[VVilliam]

I am comfortable not knowing what the hell is going on.

I am comfortable with exploring the possibilities. Now I understand the reason for your dance routine, I move on for there are far more interesting thingds to discover.

Your response has been invaluable to my research. I am more convinced that we exist within a simulation than I was prior to witnessing your routine.

[Sculptor]

No But they are contradictory to themselves. And therefore not capable of comparison with each other.

Obviously, ignoramus. Self-reference causes contradictions in every logic.

The only way to solve this is to give up the idea of "self". Are you willing to pay the price? Tell us that you don't exist.

non-existence actually exists

Contradiction

No they do not. Having no memory of a previous state is not the same as having a memory of not existing.

Contradiction!!!! Run for the hills. The world is coming to an end!



So, uh, what do you make of having the concept of "having no memory"? Sure seems like the non-existence of memory exists in your memory.

No matter how hard you try, you shall always be a third class thinker.

[VVilliam]

What is "The Universe"...?

We do not know.

If we agree that it is ""All That Exists", we still are no closer to an answer because we all experience parts of ""All That Exists", so the best we can do with that is to understand that "The Universe"... is at least made up of what each of our individual experiences of it, reflect back to us, and how we then each interpret our individual experiences because that process is also part of ""All That Exists".

"The Universe".. is and will always be - for however long one experiences - which, for all we know might have already been forever ...and will continue to do so...for all we know.

"The Universe"..is that which is experienced. Not that which is doing the experiencing. It is a reflection of that which is having the experience.

Therefore, "The Universe" is whatever that which is experiencing it, understands it to be, in relation to what they understand themselves to be.

For now - for us who share the same experience [generally/in relation to] "The Universe" at its fundamental level is made up of infinitesimal objects which altogether project extremely large objects onto a screen we refer to as "space"
"

[Skepdick]

No matter how hard you try, you shall always be a third class thinker.

Heh! I wasn't even trying for the podium. When are you going to make it here?

Seriously though. At the level of "thinking" you are exhibiting - consider that avoiding stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance.

[Skepdick]

What is "The Universe"...?

We do not know.

Not only do I not know - I don't even care for the answer or the question.

If we agree that it is ""All That Exists", we still are no closer to an answer.

All that exist is not a good enough answer for you? Oh well...

because we all experience parts of ""All That Exists", so the best we can do with that is to understand that "The Universe"... is at least made up of what each of our individual experiences of it, reflect back to us, and how we then each interpret our individual experiences because that process is also part of ""All That Exists".

Ironic, isn't it? That other people's experiences of "The Universe" are far more interesting to us than "The Universe" itself.

"The Universe".. is and will always be - for however long one experiences - which, for all we know might have already been forever ...and will continue to do so...for all we know.

"The Universe"..is that which is experienced. Not that which is doing the experiencing. It is a reflection of that which is having the experience.

Therefore, "The Universe" is whatever that which is experiencing it, understands it to be, in relation to what they understand themselves to be.

At some point I am going to ask you the really hard question. Do you understand what it means "to understand"?

Is it a feeling?
Is it an event?
Is it a thing?
Is it a revelation?

How would you know that you "understand"? It really seems like a very silly game to me.

For now - for us who share the same experience [generally/in relation to] "The Universe" at its fundamental level is made up of infinitesimal objects which altogether project extremely large objects onto a screen we refer to as "space"
"

Random observation... but the mode of thinking you are engaging right now is called "reductionism". You are trying to deconstruct the universe into parts. I hope you will remember to "put it back together" when you are done...

I never put any of my toys back together.

[VVilliam]

No matter how hard you try, you shall always be a third class thinker.

Heh! I wasn't even trying for the podium. When are you going to make it here?

Seriously though. At the level of "thinking" you are exhibiting - consider that avoiding stupidity is easier than seeking brilliance.

[VVilliam]

What is "The Universe"...?

We do not know.

Not only do I not know - I don't even care for the answer or the question.

Not only do I understand this of you [for you make that plain enough] but it is irrelevant - both to the OP subject, and to my self as an individual. Your [obvious] need to make it known to us, is likewise, irreverent.

[AlexW]

Great! Can you give me an example of a non-conceptual description?

All descriptions are conceptual - so no.

Precisely. Exactly the same thing humans do!

Yes, exactly what humans do.

I didn't ask you what it isn't. I asked you what it is.

And I told you: It is not a thing.
It neither exists nor does it not exist - and while we have a word/concept for it: consciousness - it is not a separate entity, not a limited thing.

How do you know?

From direct experience - which I interpret, shape into words and concepts and which I then share with you.

I think your problems would go away if you stopped equivocating the "I"

What are you?

I don't have a problem at all - I am perfectly aware of the fact that when I say "I" (Alex) that I refer to the conceptual individual/person that has a discussion with another conceptual individual/person called Skepdick.

That I am ultimately consciousness has nothing to do with these conceptual individuals bouncing off each other, interpreting words, phrasing replies and agreeing or disagreeing - its like waves playing on the surface of the ocean.
This doesn't mean that I - the person - identify with consciousness, this would simply be another dualistic perspective - its good enough to understand that this person is not more than a temporary collection of ideas and beliefs (like an algorithm which runs its course in a computer, works with some data and terminates ... it doesn't affect the computer/consciousness in the slightest)

[Skepdick]

All descriptions are conceptual - so no.

Yes, but concepts are not descriptions. So you do have a non-descriptive conception of "I", right?

I didn't ask you what it isn't. I asked you what it is.

And I told you: It is not a thing.
It neither exists nor does it not exist -

I didn't say that "it" is a thing - you said that. I asked you what "it" is.

and while we have a word/concept for it: consciousness - it is not a separate entity, not a limited thing.

So if it's unlimited (like infinity), and you don't identify with it - it sure sounds like you are using the word "consciousness" in exactly the same way I use the word "universe".

From direct experience - which I interpret, shape into words and concepts and which I then share with you.

So you experience consciousness, but you don't identify with it? Sounds like you are using the word "consciousness" in exactly the same way I use the word "universe".

I don't have a problem at all - I am perfectly aware of the fact that when I say "I" (Alex) that I refer to the conceptual individual/person that has a discussion with another conceptual individual/person called Skepdick.

But neither of us are consciousness?

That I am ultimately consciousness...

But you implied that you don't identify with consciousness. And now you do.

This doesn't mean that I - the person - identify with consciousness

Then why did you say that you are (ultimately) consciousness if you don't (ultimately) identify yourself as consciousness?

It makes me think that much more that you don't have a concept of "I"...

I do. I am a computer. I have no idea what the universe is.

[AlexW]

Yes, but concepts are not descriptions

How do you describe something without using concepts?
You cant.

All descriptions are made of concepts - like all gold jewellery is made of gold.
Just because the gold is made into different forms it doesn't mean that its not still gold.

So you do have a non-descriptive conception of "I", right?

No

I didn't say that "it" is a thing - you said that. I asked you what "it" is.

I don't think I ever said "it" is a thing... please show me where...

So if it's unlimited (like infinity), and you don't identify with it - it sure sounds like you are using the word "consciousness" in exactly the same way I use the word "universe".

As I see it, the universe appears in consciousness - to me, universe is a concept referencing this huge space that's filled with all kinds of planets, stars and who knows what - it contains all sorts of limited objects... while consciousness is not something definable, not within the grasp of concepts

So you experience consciousness, but you don't identify with it?

No, I don't experience consciousness - consciousness is the experiencing itself - there is no separate I experiencing anything (or identifying with anything) - the conceptual I is the identification (which is again nothing but a concept) - this is where we are back in the recursion, but only within concepts.

But neither of us are consciousness?

If with "us" you mean these entities that some conceptual structures refer to then no - these entities, these persons are nothing but a random collection of conceptual ideas, beliefs, likes, dislikes... these individuals are as such not real on the level that consciousness is real - they exist only within the world of thought.

But you implied that you don't identify with consciousness. And now you do.

No ... identification can only happen within the arena of conceptual thought - and as I (consciousness) am not a concept there is no way to identify with anything.

It makes me think that much more that you don't have a concept of "I"...

I do. I am a computer. I have no idea what the universe is.

You - the conceptual person/identity - is made up of these beliefs - the belief "I am a computer" or the belief "I have no idea what the universe is" - the same is true for the person "Alex".
Conventionally we state that: I belief the universe is infinite/finite/or whatever other quality we award to some thing - all these ideas and beliefs make up the self, the person, thats what you are in the world of conceptual thought - thats what we all are - or rather: seem to be.
But the objective structures erected within this world, within this dimension of conceptual reality, are ultimately not real - they are only a projection, a conceptual mask, but when lifting the mask... you will find that there is nothing behind it... nothing but consciousness itself, which - again - is not a thing, it is not a part of the world of the "you" and "me", of I and other.

[Skepdick]

How do you describe something without using concepts?
You cant.

You don't have to describe it in order to think about it.

How do you think about yourself if you don't have a concept of yourself?

All descriptions are made of concepts - like all gold jewellery is made of gold.

Yeah, but the inverse is not true. All concepts are not made of descriptions.

Just because the gold is made into different forms it doesn't mean that its not still gold.

Some jewellery is made of gold. Not all gold is jewellery...

So you do have a non-descriptive conception of "I", right?

No

Then how do you coherently think about yourself?
How do you coherently describe yourself?

I don't think I ever said "it" is a thing... please show me where...

You said "consciousness is not a thing". I am OK with consciousness NOT being a thing, but you are still telling me what consciousness isn't.

I am asking you to tell me what consciousness is.

As I see it, the universe appears in consciousness - to me, universe is a concept referencing this huge space that's filled with all kinds of planets, stars and who knows what - it contains all sorts of limited objects... while consciousness is not something definable, not within the grasp of concepts

So consciousness is NOT you. And consciousness is NOT the universe.

It sounds like you are speaking about God.

No, I don't experience consciousness - consciousness is the experiencing itself - there is no separate I experiencing anything (or identifying with anything) - the conceptual I is the identification (which is again nothing but a concept) - this is where we are back in the recursion, but only within concepts.

Uhhhh. So you don't identify with your past and present experiences?

If with "us" you mean these entities that some conceptual structures refer to then no - these entities, these persons are nothing but a random collection of conceptual ideas, beliefs, likes, dislikes... these individuals are as such not real on the level that consciousness is real - they exist only within the world of thought.

Ok, but thoughts exist. Otherwise your thoughts wouldn't be able to cause text on my screen.

It really sounds to me as if you are doing lots of unnecessary mental gymnastics to deny your own existence. If you want be to believe you don't exist - just shut up. The silence will convince me.

No ... identification can only happen within the arena of conceptual thought - and as I (consciousness) am not a concept there is no way to identify with anything.

Do you not even identify with yourself? Recursively?

You - the conceptual person/identity - is made up of these beliefs - the belief "I am a computer" or the belief "I have no idea what the universe is" - the same is true for the person "Alex".

Who cares if it's true? It's just a language to speak about my thoughts.

Conventionally we state that: I belief the universe is infinite/finite/or whatever other quality we award to some thing - all these ideas and beliefs make up the self, the person, thats what you are in the world of conceptual thought - thats what we all are - or rather: seem to be.
But the objective structures erected within this world, within this dimension of conceptual reality, are ultimately not real - they are only a projection, a conceptual mask, but when lifting the mask... you will find that there is nothing behind it... nothing but consciousness itself, which - again - is not a thing, it is not a part of the world of the "you" and "me", of I and other.

So behind the mask you do identify as consciousness. Which is weird, because you said you don't.

And it's pretty weird since i can sure tell the difference between "you" and "I". If I couldn't - I wouldn't have to communicate with you with language. I'd just read your mind.

[AlexW]

So behind the mask you do identify as consciousness. Which is weird, because you said you don't.

I am not sure how you reach this conclusion from what I have said...
Anyway, I don’t think this is going anywhere... I cant say it any clearer... I am sorry if I am doing a bad job at explaining what is obvious to me...

[Dontaskme]

And it's pretty weird since i can sure tell the difference between "you" and "I". If I couldn't - I wouldn't have to communicate with you with language. I'd just read your mind.

Sorry to chime in, but communicating with a 'you' is communicating with a concept. Concept's are all (you) aka a concept have to relate to, there is no thing else to relate to. A mind is a concept too... and is why minds cannot be read because they do not exist, except in this conception no concept ever conceived. In other words, no word is reading words.

Words are only known by the only knowing there is which is unknowable. Therefore, all that is apparently believed to be known is an appearance of the unknowable, aka nothing, no thing.

Any difference is purely conceptual. In other words, not there.

.

[Skepdick]

Sorry to chime in, but communicating with a 'you' is communicating with a concept. Concept's are all (you) aka a concept have to relate to, there is no thing else to relate to.

You are confused as usual. Is 'communication' a concept? Is it not communication that 'you' are participating in right now? What is it then?

A mind is a concept too... and is why minds cannot be read because they do not exist, except in this conception no concept ever conceived. In other words, no word is reading words.

Words are only known by the only knowing there is which is unknowable. Therefore, all that is apparently believed to be known is an appearance of the unknowable, aka nothing, no thing.

Any difference is purely conceptual. In other words, not there.

In your attempt to erase yourself from the equation you have a wee-bit problem.

Communication requires at least two parties. Dialogue means two speakers.

So, if you don't want to call it 'you', or 'mind', or 'thing' or 'phenomenon'- that's fine. But if you are communicating - there is a transmitter and a receiver. A speaker and a listener. Their roles switch throughout the game.