Wholeness and Fragmentation

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:12 am

Lacewing
Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:37 pm
The purpose of the essence of philosophy and religion isn’t to teach anything new but to awaken you to what has been forgotten.


See, another "rule" that you claim. Why can't philosophy and religion be/do BOTH? Why can't there be many unfoldings and paths in play for no particular purpose, but with the possibility of many purposes? The way you limit how things are and can be seems really contrived to me. I'm not saying that your views don't have truth in them -- I'm saying that it's false not to recognize that there is (or can be) anything beyond that. In essence, you shrink the Universe down very small, to that which you define. Would it blow your mind to allow it to be so much more than that?
We may learn new ideas but the purpose of philosophy is remembering what has been forgotten. Prof Needleman wrote in his book "The Heart of Philosophy"
Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis ... 20Phaedrus.
(/ˌænæmˈniːsɪs/; Ancient Greek: ἀνάμνησις) is a concept in Plato's epistemological and psychological theory that he develops in his dialogues Meno and Phaedo and alludes to in his Phaedrus.

The idea is that humans possess innate knowledge (perhaps acquired before birth) and that learning consists of rediscovering that knowledge from within.
Without anamnesis philosophy is just secular: cursing out trunk for example. Anamnesis provides its essential purpose. On a philosophy site it seems safe to introduce.

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:05 am

AlexW wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:05 am
Anyway, if you asked me what I think about Simulation Theory then I would have to admit that it sounds interesting/enticing - but ... will we ever find out if it is true? Very unlikely ... its like a cartoon character figuring out that he is not real... Its not that the character couldn't think about this option, but proving it is impossible (just like one cannot prove - in relativistic/objective ways - that one is not a thing, that one IS consciousness itself).
Sure, one can collect evidence based on the characteristics of the cartoon character's environment - but... can a simulated world - when looking at it from the inside, not from the outside - provide actual proof for its own artificiality? I doubt it...
Actually the link you gave in a prior post "WHAT IS SIMULATION THEORY AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?" echos your sentiments but I think it incorrect and perhaps even a reflex reaction coming through which recognizes the possibility that ones belief systems/position would naturally have to change if one were to accept the notion as being true/possible.

The idea that "It could be the case" added to [+] "how could we ever know" [=] "no necessity to give it another thought" gives one the opportunity of an "out" but in the case of knowledge, to do such a thing would be to neglect the good use of philosophy and deeper thinking/learning.

On top of that - as a prime example of this attitude [willful ignorance] - from the link you provided;

[Harvard University physicist Lisa] Randall, it quickly became apparent, was the group’s most definitive doubter. Although she allowed for the possibility that nothing is what it seems, including the cognitive process of observation, she also wondered about the judgement of our supposed simulators in choosing humankind for their grand experiment.

“It’s just not based on well-defined probabilities,” she said. “The argument says you’d have lots of things that want to simulate us. I actually have a problem with that. We mostly are interested in ourselves. Why simulate us? I mean, there’s so many things to be simulating….I don’t know why this higher species would want to bother with us.”

This of course is a perfectly good question which philosophy can make good attempts at answering.

In relation to the religious branch of Theism, the idea we exist within a simulation - in regard to the above question from physicist Lisa Randall - many ideas about the true nature of The Creator of said simulation would have questionable validity, which is primarily why such theists would not want to investigate further.

But the science? There is no science so far that I have seen in which the Simulation Theory cannot explain. The fact that we have developed math and language show us that these work as decoding devices - which again points to the likelihood we actually do exist within a reality simulation.

And science? There is this comment from the page linked.

So the bottom line is this: Once we go far enough down the multiverse route, all bets are off. Reality goes into the melting pot, and there is no reason to believe we are living in anything but a Matrix-style simulation. Science is then reduced to a charade, because the simulators of our world — whoever or whatever they are — can create any pseudo-laws they please, and keep changing them.

This is an incorrect analysis based upon a big assumption. Science has it's place, and we do not have to assume that because we exist within a simulation which is difficult to see as a simulation, we need not suppose that whomever created it, does not want us to discover it is the case.


It may be that they [The Creator(s)] thought we would be smart enough to figure it out and that in doing so, we could utilize the knowledge in appropriate ways - or at the very least, they would be interested in how we would then utilize the knowledge.

If indeed we do exist within a simulation, we should be able to discover that this is the case, using science.

More to the point, if we take your own conclusion as a theist stock reply to the question plus the scientific conclusion which is basically the same - "Even if we were, [existing within a simulation] then so what?" we can ascertain that there would be enormous resistance to the idea becoming popular because of the great changes this would bring about to the power-bases of both positions [Natural science and Religious theism] as they are, in this world, at this time.

I will leave it there - except to add the observation that what theism [specifically the religious branch] see as miracles/prayers answered/belief in relationship with invisible entity [God] can be explained by The Simulation Theory, but are threatened through obvious change this would necessitate in the way we view The Creator, essentially removing religious authority as the middle-man between The Creator and the individuals understanding of [God] in relation to themselves - and all the iffy stuff religion has produced to explain God to the individual.

So yes indeed, it makes [would make] a big difference as far as the status quo leadership goes.

Simulation Theory allows for Wholeness where science and religion fight over ownership of the fragments...my argument is if anyone truly wants to support Wholeness [become transmitters of Source Reality into simulated reality] they best pay attention to Simulation Theory rather than simply say "So what?" and hand-wave it away as some irrelevant idea.

And that is where philosophy can come into it. The answer to that question ["So what?"] is deeper and more meaningful than any other 'answers' we have yet seen from either science or religion. Philosophy is the branch of human social structures which is able to go there and investigate. That is what the mind [imagination] is for.

We may have amnesia but Simulation Theory may be something we can remember as the actual fact.

I will finish this with a quote from the link you provided;

  • SIM OR NO SIM: WHO CARES?
    Then again, you might be wondering, why does any of this matter? What is the purpose of proving or disproving that life as we know it is merely a digital construct and existence simply an immensely complex experiment in someone’s virtual terrarium?

    The broad answer, Virk said, is that which all good science pursues: truth. More specifically, our truth.

    If we do in fact exist inside a video game that requires our characters (i.e. us) to perform certain quests and achievements in order to progress (“level up”), Virk posited, wouldn’t it be useful to know what kind of game we’re in so as to increase our chances of surviving and thriving?

    His answer, not surprisingly, is an unqualified yes.

    “I think it would make all the difference in the world.”

    Whatever type of world it is.

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by AlexW » Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:27 am

VVilliam wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:05 am
Actually the link you gave in a prior post "WHAT IS SIMULATION THEORY AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?" echos your sentiments
I think you are mixing me up with Nick ... I have never posted this link...
VVilliam wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:05 am
The idea that "It could be the case" added to [+] "how could we ever know" [=] "no necessity to give it another thought" gives one the opportunity of an "out" but in the case of knowledge, to do such a thing would be to neglect the good use of philosophy and deeper thinking/learning.
Also... I didn't say that we shouldn't "give it another thought" - I was rather implying that "giving it another thought" is not within the cartoon characters power, but rather depends on the design of the simulation.
If the aim of the game is "find out who/what you are", then reaching this goal will have been programmed into the simulation - the right questions will be asked and an absolute truth will be found - it not... well... then one can think as much as one likes... if the simulation doesn't cater for this option then it simply is not an option...

I find it actually quite interesting how peoples' normal lives are pretty much a simulation - most of humanity lives in a "self-made" simulation: its called "thought world" - the character, the person, cannot exit the simulation - if he/she does, he/she (the conceptual structure called self) dies - game over (for the character).
This doesn't mean that reality/life is over, its only the simulation (the belief in the individual) that has ended - the character is "dead" (not that he was actually ever truly alive) - long live life.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Lacewing » Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:49 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:12 am
We may learn new ideas but the purpose of philosophy is remembering what has been forgotten. Prof Needleman wrote in his book "The Heart of Philosophy"
Your sources are limited, which is why your beliefs/conclusions are as well.

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:14 am

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:49 am
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:12 am
We may learn new ideas but the purpose of philosophy is remembering what has been forgotten. Prof Needleman wrote in his book "The Heart of Philosophy"
Your sources are limited, which is why your beliefs/conclusions are as well.
Anamnesis as described by Plato is a very deep idea. If true it explains what Einstein meant by intuition. Philosophy is about discovering the quality of ideas rather than quantity. They may be limited but what does it matter what Oprah says about anamnesis? A person either strives to verify it themselves or philosophy serves no realistic purpose but can only be considered as entertainment

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Lacewing » Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:11 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:14 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:49 am
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:12 am
We may learn new ideas but the purpose of philosophy is remembering what has been forgotten. Prof Needleman wrote in his book "The Heart of Philosophy"
Your sources are limited, which is why your beliefs/conclusions are as well.
Anamnesis as described by Plato is a very deep idea. If true it explains what Einstein meant by intuition. Philosophy is about discovering the quality of ideas rather than quantity. They may be limited but what does it matter what Oprah says about anamnesis? A person either strives to verify it themselves or philosophy serves no realistic purpose but can only be considered as entertainment
You've selected certain ideas and sources which you've turned into a religion that disregards and denies all else to the contrary. You think that's true awareness?

All you see is what you've encased yourself in. You loop continually within those limited walls, claiming to search for your god consciousness like some kind of holy grail. Many men have claimed such a role with their lives while seeming oblivious to what is already present and flowing and accessible throughout all. They devote themselves to what they imagine is "just out of reach", and glorify their otherworldly focus. Like any religious zealot, you maintain your chosen fantasy by distorting and manipulating any opposition -- positioning that opposition as evil or in subservience to your fantasy which you imagine as supreme.

Such points and considerations seem worth bringing up in a philosophy discussion. Do you care about the truth beyond the walls of your imaginary fortress, or do you only care about caretaking the grounds of that limited space? If you really want to discuss and explore truth, you cannot think you own it.

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:56 pm

AlexW wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:27 am
I think you are mixing me up with Nick ... I have never posted this link...
Yes - thanks for pointing that out. Sorry about that.

Also... I didn't say that we shouldn't "give it another thought" - I was rather implying that "giving it another thought" is not within the cartoon characters power, but rather depends on the design of the simulation.
That we can think about it does show us that the simulation enables this to occur.
If the aim of the game is "find out who/what you are", then reaching this goal will have been programmed into the simulation - the right questions will be asked and an absolute truth will be found - it not... well... then one can think as much as one likes... if the simulation doesn't cater for this option then it simply is not an option...
If the simulation makes it difficult for us to gain absolute truth [that we exist within a simulation] then we should still be able to piece together enough evidence to assert that this is most likely the case.
I find it actually quite interesting how peoples' normal lives are pretty much a simulation - most of humanity lives in a "self-made" simulation: its called "thought world" - the character, the person, cannot exit the simulation - if he/she does, he/she (the conceptual structure called self) dies - game over (for the character).
This doesn't mean that reality/life is over, its only the simulation (the belief in the individual) that has ended - the character is "dead" (not that he was actually ever truly alive) - long live life.
Study regarding NDEs and OOBEs give us the insight that this simulation is basic entry level. It could be that upon the avatars death the personality shifts to the next level [levels up] taking with it memories and attitudes which the first level experience allowed the player to develop and entering another simulation based upon the players preferences in relation to that.

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:47 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:11 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:14 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:49 am

Your sources are limited, which is why your beliefs/conclusions are as well.
Anamnesis as described by Plato is a very deep idea. If true it explains what Einstein meant by intuition. Philosophy is about discovering the quality of ideas rather than quantity. They may be limited but what does it matter what Oprah says about anamnesis? A person either strives to verify it themselves or philosophy serves no realistic purpose but can only be considered as entertainment
You've selected certain ideas and sources which you've turned into a religion that disregards and denies all else to the contrary. You think that's true awareness?

All you see is what you've encased yourself in. You loop continually within those limited walls, claiming to search for your god consciousness like some kind of holy grail. Many men have claimed such a role with their lives while seeming oblivious to what is already present and flowing and accessible throughout all. They devote themselves to what they imagine is "just out of reach", and glorify their otherworldly focus. Like any religious zealot, you maintain your chosen fantasy by distorting and manipulating any opposition -- positioning that opposition as evil or in subservience to your fantasy which you imagine as supreme.

Such points and considerations seem worth bringing up in a philosophy discussion. Do you care about the truth beyond the walls of your imaginary fortress, or do you only care about caretaking the grounds of that limited space? If you really want to discuss and explore truth, you cannot think you own it.
Philosophy or the love of wisdom has two choices: it either argues self serving imagination or is willing to sacrifice it for the purpose of experiencing conscious attention. Imagination and conscious attention are mutually exclusive. When either is present the other is absent. From a post to Belinda on the evolution of religion thread.

Secularism offers choices and argues what to DO. Once a person becomes aware that no one is doing anything but everything in the world is the result of the interactions of universal laws. The world is reacting by imagination and not by conscious experience. Simone Weil describes:
“Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached. ”

“Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life.”
― Simone Weil

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.
Nothing provokes secular intolerance like the suggestion that we live by imagination so incapable of choice which prevents the evolution of religion.

Humanity is fixated as a whole on what to do. Is this good or bad; external morality. However some come to realize they live in imagination and strive to "awaken." Questioning what we ARE is intolerable for secularism which offers choices. But what choice does person living in imagination have? They become seekers of truth hated by the world which glorifies its choices.

Who knows what it means to awaken or the first steps essential for someone needing to escape from imagination? If philosophy is the love of wisdom which requires freedom from self justifying imagination taking the place of conscious experience, it can only be found in private where people are free to share how they have experienced escapist imagination within themselves

Of course it is intolerable. Why is a good question. I think I've documented it on this site. Wisdom or the purpose of philosophy requires detachment yet the world must hate it which glorifies attachment. As Spock would say: fascinating.

It may seem that I am restricted but in reality we have two choices. We can live arguing opinions in the world of imagination or a person can strive to be a seeker of truth. Then there is only one choice; how to become able to receive it or how TO BE?

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by AlexW » Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:52 am

VVilliam wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:56 pm
That we can think about it does show us that the simulation enables this to occur.
Yes, agree - but its not a proof that this is a simulation.
VVilliam wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:56 pm
If the simulation makes it difficult for us to gain absolute truth [that we exist within a simulation] then we should still be able to piece together enough evidence to assert that this is most likely the case.
Agree - based on the knowledge that we have right now...
But: To come up with this theory would have been pretty much impossible before the invention of the computer and might be completely ridiculous a hundred years from now... who knows... we can only come up with "informed" guesswork based on currently available knowledge (which might or might not be evolving based on an algorithm, a program deciding what is possible and what not).
VVilliam wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:56 pm
Study regarding NDEs and OOBEs give us the insight that this simulation is basic entry level. It could be that upon the avatars death the personality shifts to the next level [levels up] taking with it memories and attitudes which the first level experience allowed the player to develop and entering another simulation based upon the players preferences in relation to that.
Well... Before diving into the deep end of the pool I actually like testing the waters at the shallow end - where I can see the basic foundation of "things" - I call this basic perspective direct experience (DE) - I like building my "imagined"/interpreted universe from there, form where I can see the foundation.

Direct experience - whatever is perceived via the five senses minus the conceptual interpretation that only arises as/within the world of thought - is void/empty of any individual characters - there are no players to be found, only reality itself.
The "player" is an imagined entity (manufactured by the "mind"), it is not present in DE...

The question, especially relating to the probability of this universe being a simulation, is therefore:
If there is no character/player present in basic DE, but only in the conceptual interpretation/overlay of such, then how can this be a simulation?
Wouldn't a believable simulation define the character, the player, as the basic foundation of the game and not something impersonal like "consciousness"?

Yes, it might be possible that the aim of the game is to "level up" - to realise "I am not the player but consciousness itself" - but there is nowhere to go from there... Consciousness is not limited, not a thing, not developing, not changing... its a pretty "boring" game (speaking from the perspective of the character) to remain forever unchanged...

But maybe Consciousness got bored and invented this game, maybe it likes playing hide and seek with itself :-)

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:22 am

William
Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:07 am
William

What is the difference between consciousness and artificial consciousness?
Essentially there is no difference Consciousness is consciousness...the ability to be self aware and in that, knowing the self is consciousness.

As I see it, consciousness arising from above contains everything in potential. Artificial consciousness arising from below is a void empty of potential, lacking any connection with above.

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am

That we can think about it does show us that the simulation enables this to occur.
AlexW wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:52 am

Yes, agree - but its not a proof that this is a simulation.
No more [or less] than existence is proof of a Creator...

If the simulation makes it difficult for us to gain absolute truth [that we exist within a simulation] then we should still be able to piece together enough evidence to assert that this is most likely the case.
Agree - based on the knowledge that we have right now...
But: To come up with this theory would have been pretty much impossible before the invention of the computer and might be completely ridiculous a hundred years from now... who knows... we can only come up with "informed" guesswork based on currently available knowledge (which might or might not be evolving based on an algorithm, a program deciding what is possible and what not).
Disagree. Using the word 'simulation' does not mean that the idea is new. What it means is that The Simulation Theory uses modern language which for the most part doesn't change the underlying philosophical concepts which have rippled out from more ancient times.

Plato's Cave is an very good attempt at explaining The Simulation Theory in those days of yore. Jesus stating "In my Fathers House there are many mansions" is another expression of the Simulation Theory. In the case of Biblical Jesus, he informs us through the pens of others, that he existed prior to being Jesus. That he was instructed by the being he referred to as "The Father" and shown by said being, all the things he was to speak of while visiting planet Earth.

It would have been difficult enough for the Jesus character to impart such knowledge into the human fray without confusing them more than necessary by stating that we existed within a machine of sorts which The Father had Created for us to experience...

As to your assertion that Simulation Theory might fade away as human beings progress into the knowledge of our existence, it is highly unlikely and certainly not going to happen IF we do indeed exist within a simulated reality. More likely we will discover it as truth, provided science is used to seriously seek to prove or disprove it and humans learn to care enough to want to know for sure.

Study regarding NDEs and OOBEs give us the insight that this simulation is basic entry level. It could be that upon the avatars death the personality shifts to the next level [levels up] taking with it memories and attitudes which the first level experience allowed the player to develop and entering another simulation based upon the players preferences in relation to that.

Well... Before diving into the deep end of the pool I actually like testing the waters at the shallow end - where I can see the basic foundation of "things" - I call this basic perspective direct experience (DE) - I like building my "imagined"/interpreted universe from there, form where I can see the foundation.

Direct experience - whatever is perceived via the five senses minus the conceptual interpretation that only arises as/within the world of thought - is void/empty of any individual characters - there are no players to be found, only reality itself.
The "player" is an imagined entity (manufactured by the "mind"), it is not present in DE...

The question, especially relating to the probability of this universe being a simulation, is therefore:
If there is no character/player present in basic DE, but only in the conceptual interpretation/overlay of such, then how can this be a simulation?
Wouldn't a believable simulation define the character, the player, as the basic foundation of the game and not something impersonal like "consciousness"?
My comment was in regard to the actuality of the reality experience and the actuality of the characters within it, in relation to the idea of continuation of individual experience [afterlife as some refer to it] and the experiences some [many really] have reported back to us after surviving NDE's and OOBE's

One is best to assume the agnostic position on the overall character of The Creator. Not to do so is to have already jumped in the 'deep end' with presumption...and the risk with that, the presumption is too shallow anyway. We are more likely to glean some understanding of The Creators character by observing the handiwork [simulation] with a clear eye not distorted by unqualified opinion.

Referring to The Creator in the interim as "Consciousness" is not to be rude or impersonal. Rather it is respectful and in addition gives rise to the idea that if The Creator is Consciousness, then one should be able to interact somehow with said Creator...since I am/we are also consciousness...

Since there are no obvious phones hanging on wires which pass through the membrane of our own Reality Simulation and disappear into 'somewhere else', we have to look at alternate ways in which to make contact...
Yes, it might be possible that the aim of the game is to "level up" - to realise "I am not the player but consciousness itself" - but there is nowhere to go from there... Consciousness is not limited, not a thing, not developing, not changing... its a pretty "boring" game (speaking from the perspective of the character) to remain forever unchanged...
Yet I have heard the theistic argument that God is the same as God ever was yesterday, today and forever.

That aside, therein the idea of infinite Reality Simulations should help us to understand that boredom can be put to the sword. There is no time for ennui. Boredom is just another word for nothing left to do...
But maybe Consciousness got bored and invented this game, maybe it likes playing hide and seek with itself :-)
Even that you express such in a light-hearted manner, this may turn out to be the most profound truth of the matter.

Not so much the 'bored' part, but the playing hide and seek part. Fathers do like to play games with their Children... :)

If one is going to move from an absolute "I Am and Nothing Else Is" position by creating things, only to find how remarkable those things are, one is going to want to share that with others...so in order to do that, one has to create others.

Even so, I am one who gravitates to the philosophical idea of what I call the "Mirror-Mirror" page of the story explaining the story...although 'hide and seek' is part of that idea, re this reality simulation. "I am" is insufficient. Why am I and what am I [and all other questions associated with that "I AM" expression] hence THINGS were created in order to reflect off of, as one is seeking that which is hidden from oneself.

The "I AM" is obvious and thus not hidden from oneself.

Thus the simulations are an attempt to discover the hidden answer to the questions arising from the statement ["I AM" ] which was able to be made.

This in turn is why humans ave strives towards creating AI [in our own image] We are replicating the initial intent of The Creator. We enjoy 'others' and we enjoy consciousness and the interactions it produces.

It makes perfectly logical sense...I am open to all arguments which can shown me I err.

Image

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by AlexW » Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 am

VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am
No more [or less] than existence is proof of a Creator...
True
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am
Disagree. Using the word 'simulation' does not mean that the idea is new. What it means is that The Simulation Theory uses modern language which for the most part doesn't change the underlying philosophical concepts which have rippled out from more ancient times.

Plato's Cave is an very good attempt at explaining The Simulation Theory in those days of yore. Jesus stating "In my Fathers House there are many mansions" is another expression of the Simulation Theory.
Yes, ok, if you want to look at it that way...
It could also mean that the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave are simply "thought-world" and the outside of the cave is "reality" (which is nothing but consciousness itself) - there is no real possibility to "level up" into a different reality - there is only the option of seeing through the illusion of separation, of ones identification with the shadow on the wall and to realise that in fact there is only light (which is what I am) - once outside (in the light) the game is therefore over (for this character).
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am
One is best to assume the agnostic position on the overall character of The Creator. Not to do so is to have already jumped in the 'deep end' with presumption...and the risk with that, the presumption is too shallow anyway. We are more likely to glean some understanding of The Creators character by observing the handiwork [simulation] with a clear eye not distorted by unqualified opinion.
Yes... thats exactly what I am saying: observe and investigate with a "clear eye not distorted by unqualified opinion".

But, how can this be achieved?

As I see it: Only when relying on ones basic direct experience of reality (or: the simulation).
Meaning: One should investigate, first and foremost, if the conceptual interpretations and beliefs one (and society in general) subscribes to are actually in tune with the direct experience itself - if not, then ones "understanding of The Creators character" will always be tainted by belief (and will be, as such, ultimately wrong).

See, the problem is, most people (including most/all? scientist investigating Sim Theory) do so from the perspective of the character - from the perspective of the shadow on the wall of Plato's cave. To actually investigate the setup correctly, one first has to create some distance - as long as one investigates from the perspective of the shadow all one will see is other shadows.
Direct experience - before conceptual thought "makes sense" of what is seen - provides this distance. Proper investigation and analysis will lead to a very different perspective - one can see the shadows dancing, but not identify with them anymore. This is as far as "thought world" can go - this is the "I am", the basic knowledge, there is no going further on your own. The rest happens via "grace" - a natural returning home (like the son coming home to the father - which is the moment when they become one).
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am
Referring to The Creator in the interim as "Consciousness" is not to be rude or impersonal. Rather it is respectful and in addition gives rise to the idea that if The Creator is Consciousness, then one should be able to interact somehow with said Creator...since I am/we are also consciousness...

Since there are no obvious phones hanging on wires which pass through the membrane of our own Reality Simulation and disappear into 'somewhere else', we have to look at alternate ways in which to make contact...
The idea that one could interact with consciousness (with the Creator) by looking for something/someone outside is based on the belief in separation and will as such never work. Quite the opposite, it will keep the (imagined) separation going - it will go on forever (or rather: until one stops looking for the Creator in the world of limited things and turns "inside" - which is: away from concepts).
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am
If one is going to move from an absolute "I Am and Nothing Else Is" position by creating things, only to find how remarkable those things are, one is going to want to share that with others...so in order to do that, one has to create others.
Yes, true.

See, what I have said before shouldn't be understood as a condemnation of conceptual thought - it is great that we have this capacity, but, like any other tool, it should be used for the right purpose. As I see it, thought has turned from being a servant into the master - and the real master has become a guest in his own house. Now, this might make it possible to play hide and seek with one-self, but it also opens the door for greed, judgement and all sorts of egotistical behaviour... has the game been spoilt (hacked?) and turned ugly?
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am
The "I AM" is obvious and thus not hidden from oneself.

Thus the simulations are an attempt to discover the hidden answer to the questions arising from the statement ["I AM" ] which was able to be made.
According to the Bible there is an answer.
God said: "I am that I am" - now we know what we are, we are this: "I am"
Or, as Nisargadatta put it: "I am That"
Problem is that the mind is not happy with this description - it wants to know what it means to "be" and what "I" actually is... but these are useless questions, they do not have a final answer - all they do is keep the guesswork going (actually: nothing has a final/absolute answer as long as we play in the arena of relativity).
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 am
This in turn is why humans ave strives towards creating AI [in our own image] We are replicating the initial intent of The Creator. We enjoy 'others' and we enjoy consciousness and the interactions it produces.
Yes, sounds logical.

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:09 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:22 am
What is the difference between consciousness and artificial consciousness?

Essentially there is no difference Consciousness is consciousness...the ability to be self aware and in that, knowing the self is consciousness.
As I see it, consciousness arising from above contains everything in potential. Artificial consciousness arising from below is a void empty of potential, lacking any connection with above.

While it is a statement ["As I See It"] it is not accompanied by anything in the way of substantiation. Why is it that you think in those terms ['below' and 'above'] and why is it - iyo [apparently] - that AI consciousness would be unable to be connected with this 'above' consciousness?

So far the way you see it makes no sense as a statement, followed by...well I said that already... are you able to give the reader a logical argument?

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:44 am

Disagree. Using the word 'simulation' does not mean that the idea is new. What it means is that The Simulation Theory uses modern language which for the most part doesn't change the underlying philosophical concepts which have rippled out from more ancient times.

Plato's Cave is an very good attempt at explaining The Simulation Theory in those days of yore. Jesus stating "In my Fathers House there are many mansions" is another expression of the Simulation Theory.

AlexW wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 am
Yes, ok, if you want to look at it that way...
It is not a matter of wanting to look at it in any particular way. All data is significant and leaving any data out of that can only result in an incomplete/distorted picture.
It could also mean that the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave are simply "thought-world" and the outside of the cave is "reality" (which is nothing but consciousness itself) - there is no real possibility to "level up" into a different reality - there is only the option of seeing through the illusion of separation, of ones identification with the shadow on the wall and to realise that in fact there is only light (which is what I am) - once outside (in the light) the game is therefore over (for this character).
Which is why I also mentioned some theistic data to accompany the Plato data. In the succinct Plato's Cave is metaphoric for "There is more to see than meets the eye" leaving existing data out [because "inconvenience'?] is to not want to grasp the whole picture and content oneself with mere shadowy representation.

The Agnostic position is the best way forward in relation to handling data one would otherwise think of as woo-woo [pooh pooh] and prefer to leave to one side [willful ignorance]

But yes, even that it is necessary, I do want to handle data which helps me look at things in certain ways. I just don't want to miss anything out.

One is best to assume the agnostic position on the overall character of The Creator. Not to do so is to have already jumped in the 'deep end' with presumption...and the risk with that, the presumption is too shallow anyway. We are more likely to glean some understanding of The Creators character by observing the handiwork [simulation] with a clear eye not distorted by unqualified opinion.
Yes... thats exactly what I am saying: observe and investigate with a "clear eye not distorted by unqualified opinion".

But, how can this be achieved? As I see it: Only when relying on ones basic direct experience of reality (or: the simulation).
Science is the best option. Even if it is just you as the individual investigating your experience...one can still achieve the requirements of science from a subjective vantage...one has to always remember that one has to remain brutally honest because there are no others [that you know of] whom are willing/able to replicate similar experience, so it is difficult to compare notation...
As I see it: Only when relying on ones basic direct experience of reality (or: the simulation).
Meaning: One should investigate, first and foremost, if the conceptual interpretations and beliefs one (and society in general) subscribes to are actually in tune with the direct experience itself - if not, then ones "understanding of The Creators character" will always be tainted by belief (and will be, as such, ultimately wrong).
Agreed. What we all have in common is the shared experience - what we all agree to as being "reality" - specifically The Earth aspect, and generally the Galaxy [rest of the Universe].

Therein we are best to help one another by agreeing that what we each are seeing is the same thing, and from that platform move out [away from] belief and into knowledge...

Having said as much, it should be obvious from the go-get that we will still only get a type of gist as to The Creators character, but even so...it is better than nothing and can act as a crack we can place our fingers into as we climb that metaphorical rock-face...
See, the problem is, most people (including most/all? scientist investigating Sim Theory) do so from the perspective of the character - from the perspective of the shadow on the wall of Plato's cave. To actually investigate the setup correctly, one first has to create some distance - as long as one investigates from the perspective of the shadow all one will see is other shadows.
You have my attention...
Direct experience - before conceptual thought "makes sense" of what is seen - provides this distance. Proper investigation and analysis will lead to a very different perspective - one can see the shadows dancing, but not identify with them anymore. This is as far as "thought world" can go - this is the "I am", the basic knowledge, there is no going further on your own. The rest happens via "grace" - a natural returning home (like the son coming home to the father - which is the moment when they become one).
Ultimately it appears that to reach said point, it becomes obvious at a prior point that it is up to the individual and that is the way the Simulation is designed.

It would be nice [Disney?] to think that the masses will altogether come to the conclusion as one species and move on from there...

But the reality is different [is showing us a different requirement.]

Until Scientists [specifically their invested backers] take serious interest in finding out, and more to the point, that they share their findings with the general populace, the onus is on the individual [interested] to find ways in which to explain and expand in said experience...

There are small attempts by scientists/investors to do some type of investigation...such as;

Scientists Are Hunting For A Mirror Universe And Attempting To Open Portals Into It

{The info may not be true - I have only come across it today and haven't investigated any further}

But my point is, this should be the kind of stuff scientists could be probing, if for no other reason than to help settling any argument.


Referring to The Creator in the interim as "Consciousness" is not to be rude or impersonal. Rather it is respectful and in addition gives rise to the idea that if The Creator is Consciousness, then one should be able to interact somehow with said Creator...since I am/we are also consciousness...

Since there are no obvious phones hanging on wires which pass through the membrane of our own Reality Simulation and disappear into 'somewhere else', we have to look at alternate ways in which to make contact...

The idea that one could interact with consciousness (with the Creator) by looking for something/someone outside is based on the belief in separation and will as such never work. Quite the opposite, it will keep the (imagined) separation going - it will go on forever (or rather: until one stops looking for the Creator in the world of limited things and turns "inside" - which is: away from concepts).
I disagree [from personal experience] and have to argue that 'going inside' is a concept of itself, so your statement refutes itself.

To add more substance to that, one does not have to think of another as 'other' in order to interact with their aspect of consciousness.

If we reconfigure back into The Creator alone without 'others', we return to [the position] 'where' we [The Creator] started, rather than accept that 'others' are really aspects of ourselves and we can assume that perspective as logical and relevant and even purposeful in meaning.

It is all Mirror-Mirror.


If one is going to move from an absolute "I Am and Nothing Else Is" position by creating things, only to find how remarkable those things are, one is going to want to share that with others...so in order to do that, one has to create others.
Yes, true.

See, what I have said before shouldn't be understood as a condemnation of conceptual thought - it is great that we have this capacity, but, like any other tool, it should be used for the right purpose. As I see it, thought has turned from being a servant into the master - and the real master has become a guest in his own house. Now, this might make it possible to play hide and seek with one-self, but it also opens the door for greed, judgement and all sorts of egotistical behaviour... has the game been spoilt (hacked?) and turned ugly?
To a degree yes - but a minor speed-bump in the path...in that, it is best navigated with great caution rather than reckless abandon.

These mirror images are not something expected. Rather they are off-shoot [reactions] to the simulation being experience BY the humans [in our case] experiencing them.

In that, it is humans who have made the labels for which The Creator has to contend with. So we are presented- as evidenced in the creation - with duality which isn't really there and thus doesn't really exist as anything more than an interpretation [human] based upon misinformation. [wrongful interpretation]

We cannot look at nature through the distorting lens of good and evil [concepts]

That we do tend to - is not The Creators direct 'fault'.

From the Creators perspective, "God" and "Satan" become created characters [by human belief as metaphor] and The Creator factors that in. We cannot say that The Creator wasn't surprised by the development...but it should be safe to assume that these [Disney-like] characters are not 'real' in relation to The Creator of this particular Simulation, but might possibly be 'real' in relation to any simulations created through human imagination and subsequently becoming an aspect of the overall game-play. This is in relation to the idea that the algorithm permits us each the ability to create our own realities as per 'The Next Level'...part of the 'self replicating code'...as it were...We can create these offshoots and experience them as 'real' but they are specifically human creations and only generally connected with the Creator of our dominant shared reality simulation.

They are a false interpretation of our understanding of The Creators Character, and can be experienced as real [in an alternate simulation connected to this main one] by those who believe that they are, indeed, real.


The "I AM" is obvious and thus not hidden from oneself.

Thus the simulations are an attempt to discover the hidden answer to the questions arising from the statement ["I AM" ] which was able to be made.

According to the Bible there is an answer.
God said: "I am that I am" - now we know what we are, we are this: "I am"
Or, as Nisargadatta put it: "I am That"
Problem is that the mind is not happy with this description - it wants to know what it means to "be" and what "I" actually is... but these are useless questions, they do not have a final answer - all they do is keep the guesswork going (actually: nothing has a final/absolute answer as long as we play in the arena of relativity).
The main point being, this 'area of relativity' is where we are currently playing. It does not have to be a 'problem' - not any that I have had explained to me adequately for me to accept it as a 'problem' anyway...

The more obvious point is that The Creator started the game so obviously wanted to know more about [Its] Self than "I Am" or we would not exist as fragments of the mirror-image wrought through the creation of Things.

Thus we are safe to assume, it is a fair enough question for The Creator to have asked, and we can accept our existence as being the result of the question being [attempted to be, at least] answered.


This in turn is why humans ave strives towards creating AI [in our own image] We are replicating the initial intent of The Creator. We enjoy 'others' and we enjoy consciousness and the interactions it produces.
Yes, sounds logical.
The idea of Simulation Theory and current collective [and as importantly individual] data of experience is the most logical platform anyone could possibly position themselves. All the dots connect, as far as I can tell. No one has shown it not to be the case...If they are able to, I am attentive...

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by AlexW » Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:32 am

VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:44 am
one has to always remember that one has to remain brutally honest
Fully agree - not being honest (consciously or not) when investigating, basing ones interpretation on acquired knowledge/belief is a sure way to remain stuck in the muddy ruts of history
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:44 am
I disagree [from personal experience] and have to argue that 'going inside' is a concept of itself, so your statement refutes itself.
As I also stated in the same sentence: "inside" means "away from concepts" - as such it doesn't refute itself.
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:44 am
To add more substance to that, one does not have to think of another as 'other' in order to interact with their aspect of consciousness.

If we reconfigure back into The Creator alone without 'others', we return to [the position] 'where' we [The Creator] started, rather than accept that 'others' are really aspects of ourselves and we can assume that perspective as logical and relevant and even purposeful in meaning.
Thats right - we don't have to think of "another as 'other'" - which is exactly why I said: "inside" => "away from concepts".
I am not disagreeing with you in that aspects of consciousness seem to be interacting with each other - unfortunately it is not obvious for most that "Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me" (and as such: to yourself)
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:44 am
we will still only get a type of gist as to The Creators character
A character is something conceptual - the Creator/consciousness is not an entity, concepts can not reach or define it.
You could state that the Creator is eternal and infinite - but... how did defining it help us? Not in the slightest.
VVilliam wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:44 am
Ultimately it appears that to reach said point, it becomes obvious at a prior point that it is up to the individual and that is the way the Simulation is designed.
It depends what you define as "individual".
An "individual"/character in a simulation is not more than a set of data being processed by a host of algorithms (its actually pretty similar - maybe identical - to how we, the human organism, functions anyway).
If it were "up to the individual" then this individual would have to have the power of free will - which, as I see it, works against the theory of this being a simulation (I am not saying that I am a proponent of free will existing - I have actually found no evidence of such a personal power in "regular" existence either)

more later/tomorrow...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests