The 'simulation hypothesis' title major flaw

[Noax]

The 'thing' is a 3rd party entity that constructs reality such that we can perceive it.

Also, your 3rd party (claimed to be natural) is creating nature.

No, it is nature.

You just said it constructs reality. That would be nature creating nature, which is not possible under natural law.

I don't need a 3rd party to project an apple image to me when I imagine an apple. I seem to be capable of the abstraction on my own.

But you do understand that within your mind there is a projection...of an apple.

No I don't. No projecting going on. Such a concept would involve two entities, something doing the projecting to a separate perceiving thing. That's what a projector does. That's what VR does. That is not what nature does, lacking a thing to which it can project. You may posit such an arrangement, but it isn't a natural theory then.

I don't think such a thing as consciousness is at all within the material comprehension of physics.

Well, neither is the economy. Wrong branch of science.

[attofishpi]

Also, your 3rd party (claimed to be natural) is creating nature.

No, it is nature.

You just said it constructs reality. That would be nature creating nature, which is not possible under natural law.

By nature I am referring to all existence. All the particles, atoms and their behaviour are courtesy of the nature of the 3rd party entity, an absurd claim I know, but one which I have had the dubious at time unfortunate circumstance to witness that the control that this party has over matter. I refuse to consider the entity 'supernatural', because again, by its very existence, it is part of the natural universe.

I don't need a 3rd party to project an apple image to me when I imagine an apple. I seem to be capable of the abstraction on my own.

But you do understand that within your mind there is a projection...of an apple.

No I don't. No projecting going on. Such a concept would involve two entities, something doing the projecting to a separate perceiving thing. That's what a projector does. That's what VR does. That is not what nature does, lacking a thing to which it can project. You may posit such an arrangement, but it isn't a natural theory then.

The nature of reality is projected upon, the as yet not understood state of consciousness. Our consciousness, is the receiver of the projection, it is not the same concept as VR, because VR by its definition is 'virtual reality' a man made mimic of the nature of reality. Consciousness, constructs what it perceives from the natural universe, and that construction within the mind can be understood as a projection.

I don't think such a thing as consciousness is at all within the material comprehension of physics.

Well, neither is the economy. Wrong branch of science.

Oh, you want Biology? Surely it comes back to that supersedes thing, that physics has the final call.

[Noax]

No, it is nature.

You just said it constructs reality. That would be nature creating nature, which is not possible under natural law.

By nature I am referring to all existence.

The word means nothing of the sort. It means only the particles, atoms and their behaviour, the part that science studies. Anything outside that is supernatural (beyond the natural laws that seem to confine the stuff to which we have empirical access).
You can call it all natural if you want to derail the conversation, but doing so without stating this redefinition just leads to miscommunication.

OK, so I have no words now to distinguish (within physics) and (not), but there is a barrier between the two and you are positing interaction (creation, projection) across that barrier, which is a dualistic model. I'm not asserting you are wrong about this model, but you seem to be embarrassed to name it for what it is. The simulation hypothesis is one where there is no such barrier. Everything is on the <within whatever physics is being simulated> side with no outside interference. One can observe the thing simulated in an epiphenomenal relationship, but interference of any kind destroys the simulation since the state would no longer be what the chosen physics would have produced. It would no longer be a simulation of the chosen physics, but rather a tool with which interaction serves some other purpose.

it is not the same concept as VR, because VR by its definition is 'virtual reality' a man made mimic of the nature of reality.

No, nothing in the VR definition demands that it be man-made. Yes, the ones that man has made have all been man-made, but only the most naive people posit that we are currently living in a VR created by ourselves. It is quite trivial to disprove this.
The definition also does not demand that it be a mimic of the nature of the same reality. One can create any reality at all. Certainly if this world is a VR, it is not a mimic of the world in which the VR runs since the world portrayed here is incapable of the creation of such a VR.

A cheap example is a fully immersive VR of our reality rotated by 180 degrees. The ground appears to be up, and left is right, etc. It mimics a different perspective on what is otherwise the same physics. Trick of the game is to function normally, to walk for instance and navigate and live your life normally with the rotated view. Apparently it takes a few days to do this the first time, but not a long time.

Oh, you want Biology? Surely it comes back to that supersedes thing, that physics has the final call.

It does have a more final call, but I recall nothing in any physics equation that describes a cell. It touches into chemistry at best. There are physics explanations about why some molecules are stable and others not.

[attofishpi]

You just said it constructs reality. That would be nature creating nature, which is not possible under natural law.

By nature I am referring to all existence. I refuse to consider the entity 'supernatural', because again, by its very existence, it is part of the natural universe.

The word means nothing of the sort. It means only the particles, atoms and their behaviour, the part that science studies. Anything outside that is supernatural (beyond the natural laws that seem to confine the stuff to which we have empirical access).

Just because we have no empirical evidence of something does not denote it as unnatural or even supernatural. Do we have empirical evidence of dark energy\matter and the behaviour of the particles that make up that matter, or should we call that 'supernatural'?

OK, so I have no words now to distinguish (within physics) and (not), but there is a barrier between the two and you are positing interaction (creation, projection) across that barrier, which is a dualistic model. I'm not asserting you are wrong about this model, but you seem to be embarrassed to name it for what it is.

I am not embarrassed in the least, I am stating that what your conscious mind perceives as reality is indeed a projection upon your conscious mind, I can't see how you could view it in any other way.

it is not the same concept as VR, because VR by its definition is 'virtual reality' a man made mimic of the nature of reality.

No, nothing in the VR definition demands that it be man-made. Yes, the ones that man has made have all been man-made, but only the most naive people posit that we are currently living in a VR created by ourselves. It is quite trivial to disprove this.
The definition also does not demand that it be a mimic of the nature of the same reality. One can create any reality at all. Certainly if this world is a VR, it is not a mimic of the world in which the VR runs since the world portrayed here is incapable of the creation of such a VR.

And you insist since your conscious mind has images contained within it, courtesy of the outside reality, that this denotes VR!

Oh, you want Biology? Surely it comes back to that supersedes thing, that physics has the final call.

It does have a more final call, but I recall nothing in any physics equation that describes a cell. It touches into chemistry at best. There are physics explanations about why some molecules are stable and others not.

I'm sure that there are physics equations for how the matter - the chemistry within a cell operate, which in tail assists a biologist with describing what happens within a cell.

[bahman]

I am stating that what your conscious mind perceives as reality is indeed a projection upon your conscious mind, I can't see how you could view it in any other way.

Could you please elaborate? I don't understand what you are stating here.

[attofishpi]

I am stating that what your conscious mind perceives as reality is indeed a projection upon your conscious mind, I can't see how you could view it in any other way.

Could you please elaborate? I don't understand what you are stating here.

When you look at an apple - the image of the apple is within your conscious mind. When you close your eyes and imagine an apple, the image of an apple is within you conscious mind. Ergo, reality has projected an image to your mind.

[Noax]

Just because we have no empirical evidence of something does not denote it as unnatural or even supernatural.

I didn't say otherwise. 'Natural' does not mean 'existing'.

Do we have empirical evidence of dark energy\matter and the behaviour of the particles that make up that matter, or should we call that 'supernatural'?

Yes, we do have empirical evidence of all that. Dark matter was originally posited to account for empirical observations of the dynamics of matter movement at large scales. Cosmology speaks of regions of the universe where QM law is reduced to its fundamentals and secondary properties (like the strength of EM force) are not fixed. That pushes the envelope of where 'natural' ends since there is no direct empirical contact with such realms, but it is still the same fundamental law.

I am stating that what your conscious mind perceives as reality is indeed a projection upon your conscious mind, I can't see how you could view it in any other way.

I am sorry that your ability to grasp another view is so impaired.

And you insist since your conscious mind has images contained within it, courtesy of the outside reality, that this denotes VR!

It can be worded that way, but VR usually connotes an externally generated experience projected explicitly to an experiencer, whereas what you are describing here is a real world being abstracted by the person experiencing it, and then the person interacting with his own internally generated abstraction. Being the same thing, there is no projecting from one to another going on. So both the real apple and the imagined one with the cartoon worm sticking out of it are both actually abstractions of what the real apple might be, but the sensory input from what appears to be the real apple is probably not just an illusion explicitly generated for the purpose of projecting it to me.

I'm sure that there are physics equations for how the matter - the chemistry within a cell operate, which in tail assists a biologist with describing what happens within a cell.

Yup. In that same sense, physics explains consciousness, and the economy as well.

[attofishpi]

Just because we have no empirical evidence of something does not denote it as unnatural or even supernatural.

I didn't say otherwise. 'Natural' does not mean 'existing'.

No they are clearly different words of different meanings, but explain to me something that exists that is not natural.

Do we have empirical evidence of dark energy\matter and the behaviour of the particles that make up that matter, or should we call that 'supernatural'?

Yes, we do have empirical evidence of all that. Dark matter was originally posited to account for empirical observations of the dynamics of matter movement at large scales. Cosmology speaks of regions of the universe where QM law is reduced to its fundamentals and secondary properties (like the strength of EM force) are not fixed. That pushes the envelope of where 'natural' ends since there is no direct empirical contact with such realms, but it is still the same fundamental law.

No, you are only assuming that it is the same fundamental law. I have yet to see a phycisist make such a claim, all that is known thus far is that dark energy\matter exists since it is the most feasible explanation as to why the galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerated rate. There is no empirical evidence of the phenonemon of the matter within it, which by your definition of supernatural reduces it as such.

I am stating that what your conscious mind perceives as reality is indeed a projection upon your conscious mind, I can't see how you could view it in any other way.

I am sorry that your ability to grasp another view is so impaired.

So within your mind there is no projection of your observations? What would you prefer to call it?

And you insist since your conscious mind has images contained within it, courtesy of the outside reality, that this denotes VR!

It can be worded that way, but VR usually connotes an externally generated experience projected explicitly to an experiencer, whereas what you are describing here is a real world being abstracted by the person experiencing it, and then the person interacting with his own internally generated abstraction. Being the same thing, there is no projecting from one to another going on. So both the real apple and the imagined one with the cartoon worm sticking out of it are both actually abstractions of what the real apple might be, but the sensory input from what appears to be the real apple is probably not just an illusion explicitly generated for the purpose of projecting it to me.

Your use of the term 'abstraction' is a clear attempt at abstracting from the obvious, that the conscious mind contains within it a projection of what it perceives as reality, that is not to say as you implied that it is an illusion.

[Noax]

'Natural' does not mean 'existing'.

No they are clearly different words of different meanings, but explain to me something that exists that is not natural.

You are talking to the wrong guy.
1) My approach is similar to the methodological naturalism used by science, where we both choose not to consider supernatural causes. This isn't really a presumption one way or the other of ontology, but if it doesn't cause anything, it is undetectable and there's no point positing its existence.
2) I'm a relativist, so I'd say that there is no 'exists', there is only 'exists in relation to X' or 'exists to X'. So while some things exist to me, you, or my doorknob, I find it meaningless to express existence without that relation. Something exists to X if X measures the thing, however indirectly. This is hardly a common view, but it fits in nicely with the above I think.

In essence, 'natural' means the parts concerning arrangements and interactions of physical entities. A naturalist would say that no more is needed to explain everything, as opposed to the view that more is needed for a full explanation. A naturalist would probably be comfortable with positing a conscious robot (just a different arrangement of the same matter), where somebody else would not since a robot is presumably a pure physical construct and would lack that something more that is needed to be conscious.

No, you are only assuming that it is the same fundamental law. I have yet to see a phycisist make such a claim, all that is known thus far is that dark energy\matter exists since it is the most feasible explanation as to why the galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerated rate. There is no empirical evidence of the phenonemon of the matter within it, which by your definition of supernatural reduces it as such.

That motion is the empirical evidence, and the model with the dark energy fits it best, just like the model with the regular matter fits nicely with the empirical apple on the table, despite the fact that nobody has actually ever found regular matter. Yes, if there was a model that includes a non-material experiencer and a third party wish-granter and such, and it actually predicted some empirical distinctions (it does do you know), then I suppose those additions could be (would need to be) considered natural. But dark energy and such were not just hand-waving magic saying it covers the parts they couldn't explain. They are valid models that are backed with the mathematics to determine exactly how much of each is needed to get galaxies to spin the way they do and such. That's a lot different than 'magic fills the gaps where I refuse to actually investigate'.

So within your mind there is no projection of your observations? What would you prefer to call it?

I do project my observations. I'm doing it now, projecting them on this forum to you. Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity, as opposed to the same effective thing done more in a passive way like a target happening to notice the first entity despite the lack of purpose to it. Primary point is that it is an action between two things. I am one thing, so what I do is I suppose 'mental process'.

[attofishpi]

That's a lot different than 'magic fills the gaps where I refuse to actually investigate'.

Why are you using the term magic? I'm the last person on Earth to believe in 'magic', so I hope this wasn't an atto specific thing! You must agree, that it is worth thinking outside of the box sometimes, even where there is little by the way of empirical evidence, imagination is greater than knowledge, the reason he said that I think is because it gives us a goal, where an alternative avenue may be of use upon our knowledge to investigate things that seem apparent but are as yet unexplainable.

So within your mind there is no projection of your observations? What would you prefer to call it?

I do project my observations. I'm doing it now, projecting them on this forum to you. Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity, as opposed to the same effective thing done more in a passive way like a target happening to notice the first entity despite the lack of purpose to it. Primary point is that it is an action between two things. I am one thing, so what I do is I suppose 'mental process'.

At the least you could agree that the light projected from reality is rendered upon our retinas, I guess beyond that, what the brain compiles as an image, you refuse to classify as a projection.

[Noax]

Why are you using the term magic?

'Magic' covers explanations that lack scientific backing. Dark matter can be modeled and quantized, and makes testable predictions, as does gravity, despite my inability to see it. It makes dark matter a natural proposition. I agree that the line is thin in places. That just doesn't seem to be one of them.

You must agree, that it is worth thinking outside of the box sometimes,

The third party thing is hardly outside the box. It is older than any other explanation I can think of.

Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity, as opposed to the same effective thing done more in a passive way like a target happening to notice the first entity despite the lack of purpose to it.

At the least you could agree that the light projected from reality is rendered upon our retinas, I guess beyond that, what the brain compiles as an image, you refuse to classify as a projection.

Well, I said to a target that is not the first thing, and I am part of reality, so no, reality does not project to me. An apple sort of does since I am not the apple, but that is arguably that passive relationship mentioned. The apple might not have any purpose to it. But it is red, a color designed to gather attention at the right time, so yes, it does project. Its purpose is to be consumed. All that juicy goodness is there to entice me, not for the nutrition of the seeds within.

We seem to have issues with the word 'projection'. I seem to be quite picky about it, perhaps unreasonably so.

project verb
1. estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends.
2. extend outward beyond something else; protrude.
3. throw or cause to move forward or outward; propel.
3a - cause (light, shadow, or an image) to fall on a surface; cast, send.
- - - "the one light projected shadows on the wall"
3b - cause (a sound, especially the voice) to be heard at a distance.
- - - "being audible depends on your ability to project your voice"
4. present or promote (a particular view or image); convey
- - - "she tried to project a calm image"
5. GEOMETRY
draw straight lines from a center of or parallel lines through every point of (a given figure) to produce a corresponding figure on a surface or a line by intersecting the surface.
produce (such a corresponding figure).
6. make a projection of (the earth, sky, etc.) on a plane surface.

That was condensed from the online definition. 1 & 2 are different meanings, but 3-6 are potentially relevant. 5 and 6 are really the same thing, just one a more mathematical description than the physical implementation that is the other. 3b, 4 and 6 are very purposeful, but 3a, 5 perhaps not. What the apple does on my retina is very much 3a and 5. No purpose to that. There is purpose to the color, but the apple is not explicitly emitting light like a firefly does. It still relies on passive means to be noticed, and a rock doesn't have any purpose in being noticed, and yet it also does points 3a and 5. Purpose in the projecting seems optional, despite my contrary description you quoted, but it seems that the sort of projection to your experiencer is a proposal of a purposeful relationship.

None of the examples involve one thing projecting to itself or part of itself. Every one was a projection away from the projector to something else/elsewhere. Reality seems not to project to not-reality. Pretty sure that would violate apparent conservation laws.

[attofishpi]

Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity, as opposed to the same effective thing done more in a passive way like a target happening to notice the first entity despite the lack of purpose to it.

At the least you could agree that the light projected from reality is rendered upon our retinas, I guess beyond that, what the brain compiles as an image, you refuse to classify as a projection.

Well, I said to a target that is not the first thing, and I am part of reality, so no, reality does not project to me.

With that logic, there would be no term 'projection', since all projection is contained within reality.

The interesting part of the reality that is you, is that YOU are a consciousness, and a consciousness for its most part IS a receiver of information...it receives a projection not just via its retina, but all senses project information to the central consciousness. Just because consciousness is part of reality, does not mean it is not a receiver of information, and information is always projected. For example, the below definitions you provided, for example 3b - cause (sound) to be heard, is limited, since it should also entail all the other forms of senses that feed consciousness information (from the reality beyond consciousness).

We seem to have issues with the word 'projection'. I seem to be quite picky about it, perhaps unreasonably so.

Yes, I do think you are being unreasonable with the term 'projection' as I stated above.

project verb
1. estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends.
2. extend outward beyond something else; protrude.
3. throw or cause to move forward or outward; propel.
3a - cause (light, shadow, or an image) to fall on a surface; cast, send.
- - - "the one light projected shadows on the wall"
3b - cause (a sound, especially the voice) to be heard at a distance.
- - - "being audible depends on your ability to project your voice"
4. present or promote (a particular view or image); convey
- - - "she tried to project a calm image"
5. GEOMETRY
draw straight lines from a center of or parallel lines through every point of (a given figure) to produce a corresponding figure on a surface or a line by intersecting the surface.
produce (such a corresponding figure).
6. make a projection of (the earth, sky, etc.) on a plane surface.

... 3-6 are potentially relevant. 3b, 4 and 6 are very purposeful, but 3a perhaps not. What the apple does on my retina is very much 3a and 5. No purpose to that. There is purpose to the color, but the apple is not explicitly emitting light like a firefly does.

I am not sure what your point is with the term 'purpose'. The debate we are having isn't whether there is a purpose to what is received via our retina, the debate is whether it is a projection.

It still relies on passive means to be noticed, and a rock doesn't have any purpose in being noticed, and yet it also does points 3a and 5. Purpose in the projecting seems optional, despite my contrary description you quoted, but it seems that the sort of projection to your experiencer is a proposal of a purposeful relationship.

Again, I am not sure what you are implying by 'purpose', in relation to this debate at least. Of course for a consciousness to have awareness of what was projected to the retina has a purpose to any of the animal kingdom, but that is not what this debate is about.

None of the examples involve one thing projecting to itself or part of itself. Every one was a projection away from the projector to something else/elsewhere. Reality seems not to project to not-reality.

This is a contradiction, since all the examples contain parts of reality, whether they be from the projector to another thing that is a part of reality. Unless you are having doubt as to whether consciousness is part of reality - which I'm sure you arn't based on an above statement, so I am not sure why you made the statement 'Reality seems not to project to not-reality.'. This is certainly nothing near to anything I am implying.

[Noax]

Well, I said to a target that is not the first thing, and I am part of reality, so no, reality does not project to me.

With that logic, there would be no term 'projection', since all projection is contained within reality.

Contained within, sure, but not project by reality to not-reality, unless you are positing a not-reality, which is sort of what the VR hypothesis does, projecting from a virtual reality to a non-virtual entity.

The interesting part of the reality that is you, is that YOU are a consciousness, and a consciousness for its most part IS a receiver of information

Well, everything is such a receiver. A rock receives and remembers information, even if it isn't conscious of it. Science says information is conserved, which wouldn't be true if it all vanished with the demise of conscious things.

...it receives a projection not just via its retina, but all senses project information to the central consciousness.

OK, since I've been probably overly picky, I'll accept this. You've described two things (sensor, central consciousness), one not part of the other. That satisfies my primary point, since incorrect conclusions would otherwise be drawn. I suppose what a sense does meets definition 3 in a loose way (not 3a or 3b), although I might have preferred 'transmits' at this point.

Just because consciousness is part of reality, does not mean it is not a receiver of information, and information is always projected.

Information from outside the receiver might be considered projected. If it came from the receiver itself, I see no projecting going on.

For example, the below definitions you provided, for example 3b - cause (sound) to be heard, is limited, since it should also entail all the other forms of senses that feed consciousness information (from the reality beyond consciousness).

3b has to do with a person being the projector, not the receiver, which may not be a conscious thing at all. 3b is a specific thing a trained person (like a drill sergeant) can do with their voice. 3b has little relevance to the sort of thing we're discussing here. 4 I think is a better illustration of what you're saying, something done where the receiver is very much something conscious.

There is purpose to the color, but the apple is not explicitly emitting light like a firefly does.

I am not sure what your point is with the term 'purpose'. The debate we are having isn't whether there is a purpose to what is received via our retina, the debate is whether it is a projection.

I had conceded that purpose was optional after looking at the definitions. Our debate was about if projecting was going on in however you envision the simulation hypothesis. I very much see it only in the VR case (and it is the primary purpose in that scenario), but you indicate you are talking about the not-VR case (non-interactive simulation of something), which doesn't have the simulation necessarily projecting to anything outside the simulation, at least not to an entity which is capable of influencing the simulation. So I'm trying to figure out what the projector and the receiver are in that scenario.

None of the examples involve one thing projecting to itself or part of itself. Every one was a projection away from the projector to something else/elsewhere. Reality seems not to project to not-reality.

This is a contradiction, since all the examples contain parts of reality, whether they be from the projector to another thing that is a part of reality.

Not a contradiction. I would not say that reality projects to me. I say that the apple does. That all examples of projections are two entities that are part of some sufficiently greater whole does not make it contradictory. I don't project to myself, but I am willing to say that my finger projects tactile information to the central consciousness. But me projecting to my finger, or finger projecting to me are abuses of the term, not covered by any of the definitions.

Unless you are having doubt as to whether consciousness is part of reality - which I'm sure you arn't based on an above statement, so I am not sure why you made the statement 'Reality seems not to project to not-reality.'.

I said 'seems'. I try not to assert what cannot be known. Doubt is your friend.

The VR model, you have to designate which side is 'reality'. The experiencer or the experienced. 'Natural' definitely refers to the experienced.

[attofishpi]

Well, I said to a target that is not the first thing, and I am part of reality, so no, reality does not project to me.

With that logic, there would be no term 'projection', since all projection is contained within reality.

Contained within, sure, but not project by reality to not-reality, unless you are positing a not-reality, which is sort of what the VR hypothesis does, projecting from a virtual reality to a non-virtual entity.

Reality has a projection within itself, surely you cannot disagree with this.
Consciousness is a unique configuration of reality, in that as a receiver of the projection it has the ability to receive, decipher, and logically comprehend the information received.

The interesting part of the reality that is you, is that YOU are a consciousness, and a consciousness for its most part IS a receiver of information

Well, everything is such a receiver. A rock receives and remembers information, even if it isn't conscious of it. Science says information is conserved, which wouldn't be true if it all vanished with the demise of conscious things.

Can a rock remember the appearance of an apple?

...it receives a projection not just via its retina, but all senses project information to the central consciousness.

OK, since I've been probably overly picky, I'll accept this. You've described two things (sensor, central consciousness), one not part of the other. That satisfies my primary point, since incorrect conclusions would otherwise be drawn. I suppose what a sense does meets definition 3 in a loose way (not 3a or 3b), although I might have preferred 'transmits' at this point.

All points of 3 are met, they are all from the point of a cause with a result being a projection, and within the confines of our debate, the receiver of the projection is our conscious decipheration of this information. To use 'transmits', for me is your 'firefly' example.

Just because consciousness is part of reality, does not mean it is not a receiver of information, and information is always projected.

Information from outside the receiver might be considered projected.

Thanks, it is.

If it came from the receiver itself, I see no projecting going on.

You are now contradicting your earlier statement:-
'I do project my observations. I'm doing it now, projecting them on this forum to you. Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity.'

For example, the below definitions you provided, for example 3b - cause (sound) to be heard, is limited, since it should also entail all the other forms of senses that feed consciousness information (from the reality beyond consciousness).

3b has to do with a person being the projector, not the receiver, which may not be a conscious thing at all. 3b is a specific thing a trained person (like a drill sergeant) can do with their voice.

This is all irrelevant, it was just the definition's stance on the source of the projection. 3b also more importantly mentions the sense of hearing (from the projection) as I stated it is limited and should have also gone into other forms of sensory input to a conscious being.

3b has little relevance to the sort of thing we're discussing here.

Why? It does mention 'to be heard at a distance'. Ergo - the sound was projected to a conscious ability to hear.

4 I think is a better illustration of what you're saying, something done where the receiver is very much something conscious.

But conveying the image of the apple within your mind, as a memory was something you disagreed with as a projection.
4. present or promote (a particular view or image); convey

There is purpose to the color, but the apple is not explicitly emitting light like a firefly does.

I am not sure what your point is with the term 'purpose'. The debate we are having isn't whether there is a purpose to what is received via our retina, the debate is whether it is a projection.

I had conceded that purpose was optional after looking at the definitions. Our debate was about if projecting was going on in however you envision the simulation hypothesis. I very much see it only in the VR case (and it is the primary purpose in that scenario), but you indicate you are talking about the not-VR case (non-interactive simulation of something), which doesn't have the simulation necessarily projecting to anything outside the simulation, at least not to an entity which is capable of influencing the simulation. So I'm trying to figure out what the projector and the receiver are in that scenario.

What simulation? What Virtual Reality (VR)? That is the point - there is neither...why are you still on page 1 or 2?

None of the examples involve one thing projecting to itself or part of itself. Every one was a projection away from the projector to something else/elsewhere. Reality seems not to project to not-reality.

This is a contradiction, since all the examples contain parts of reality, whether they be from the projector to another thing that is a part of reality.

Not a contradiction. I would not say that reality projects to me. I say that the apple does. That all examples of projections are two entities that are part of some sufficiently greater whole does not make it contradictory.

OK, when I state reality projecting to something, I am implying it is projecting to something that is conscious, something with the ability to discern in its own conscious way, the object of the input - from the projection that is external to said consciounsess.

Unless you are having doubt as to whether consciousness is part of reality - which I'm sure you arn't based on an above statement, so I am not sure why you made the statement 'Reality seems not to project to not-reality.'.

I said 'seems'. I try not to assert what cannot be known. Doubt is your friend.

Funny, ironically I was going to bring up the term 'seems' but I thought you were more certain about such a thing.

The VR model, you have to designate which side is 'reality'. The experiencer or the experienced. 'Natural' definitely refers to the experienced.

I have to say, whenever you bring up the term VR in this debate it irks me some, I see no place for it, or at least it should have been buried some pages back.

[Noax]

Reality has a projection within itself, surely you cannot disagree with this. Consciousness is a unique configuration of reality, in that as a receiver of the projection it has the ability to receive, decipher, and logically comprehend the information received.

"A projection"? "the projection"? ...What do you even mean by that? Yes, I can agree that there is some projecting going on in reality. There wouldn't be a word for it if not. Your choice of words makes it sound like reality is one projection being played for the benefit of something, and I can't agree with that.

Can a rock remember the appearance of an apple?

They remember the appearance of life, and of the dinosaurs, projections of magnetic fields, and all sorts of other things. The apple is more difficult, but yes, rocks can do that.

All points of 3 are met, they are all from the point of a cause with a result being a projection, and within the confines of our debate, the receiver of the projection is our conscious decipheration of this information. To use 'transmits', for me is your 'firefly' example.

Doesn't seem to work. 3b for instance is to project one's voice in such a way that it can be better heard. That simply doesn't go on anywhere between my senses and conscious processing. My finger doesn't shout to my head that it detects heat, and even if it did, it wouldn't be 3b.

If it came from the receiver itself, I see no projecting going on.

You are now contradicting your earlier statement:-
'I do project my observations. I'm doing it now, projecting them on this forum to you. Projecting is what one entity purposefully does to a target that is not the first entity.'

You and I are not the same entity. That comes from me, and you are the receiver in that example.

This is all irrelevant, it was just the definition's stance on the source of the projection. 3b also more importantly mentions the sense of hearing (from the projection) as I stated it is limited and should have also gone into other forms of sensory input to a conscious being.

There is normal speaking/singing, which yes, involves this interaction you speak of. I don't deny that. 3b is a specific alternate meaning of the word, and it just doesn't apply. It is a difference in how the sound is formed so that it penetrates better, and doesn't just mean shouting. I'm not trained to do it, but I know several who can, quietly even. It is impressive.

But conveying the image of the apple within your mind, as a memory was something you disagreed with as a projection.
4. present or promote (a particular view or image); convey

That seems to indicate my conveying an idea (of an apple maybe) to you. It could be projecting if I communicate it to something else, and not just imagine it myself. I don't remember using the word 'convey' when describing my imagining of an apple (post 44?). That has the same sort of implication of source->separate-target.

The debate we are having isn't whether there is a purpose to what is received via our retina, the debate is whether it is a projection.

What simulation? What Virtual Reality (VR)? That is the point - there is neither...why are you still on page 1 or 2?

The title suggests otherwise. OK, we're debating if there is projecting going on, apparently from physical reality to the non-physical experiencer. If there is such an arrangement, yes there needs to be information transfer of some sort going on in both directions (only one direction if epiphenomenal). But that information transfer is not well characterized as a projection since the 'projector' is incapable of sending the information. Photons and say EM waves do not leave 'reality'. The receiver, unlike the physical receiver which is an effect of the process, is going to have to be the cause and go out and fetch the information. This doesn't sound at all like 'projection'.

If on the other hand there is no such separation of experiencer from physical reality, then I don't see reality (no need to call it physical reality if there is no other kind) transferring information to anything that isn't reality. Information moves from parts of reality to other parts, so sure, there is projecting going on.
I must also point out that while I don't think there are different realms of reality (I am not fundamentally different than the apple), I see things as being 'my reality' and not 'reality'. That's almost idealism, except it has zip to do with consciousness. I don't hold a conventional view, but I don't intend to assert it. I'm not asserting physicalism here, in case you wonder.

in its own conscious way, the object of the input - from the projection that is external to said consciounsess.

That would qualify except for my objection above where reality has no mechanism to project information to beyond-reality. Fetching the information doesn't violate physics (it does violate most QM interpretations), but the role reversal of cause/effect does seemingly conflict with the definition of projecting.

Funny, ironically I was going to bring up the term 'seems' but I thought you were more certain about such a thing.

That would be horrible. Why philosophize if you already know the answers? I've changed views at least half a dozen times, forever finding contradiction in whatever is yesterday's favored view.