₦airaland Forum

triplechoice:
Gemini responds based on how you ask. You asked as a Christian, seeking a Christian interpretation, and it gave you exactly what it was programmed to give, a response that aligns with mainstream Christian theology.

If someone with a different spiritual background, say, a Vedanta or a Sufi, asked the same question, they would receive a response that aligns with their understanding.

This is what we call "garbage in , garbage out". Gemini doesn't have direct knowledge of truth. It has been trained on human texts, including theological writings, and it generates responses based on patterns in that data. It will confirm whatever framework you feed it.

That is why people are advised not to treat AI as final authority. It can give different answers to different people asking the same question from different perspectives

tctrills:
Actually, I didn't ask as a Christian. I only mentioned the verse in the bible and asked it to provide the original greek and to provide a contextual meaning.

Again there is nothing wrong in asking from a Christian angle since we are discussing a verse from the bible.

triplechoice:
I said Gemini responds based on how you ask. It is how these systems are designed. You don't need to announce you are a Christian. It analyse your query to determine context, which includes detecting your religious background .Your word choices, your spelling patterns, and the way you frame a question, influence the response. Gemini picks up on these signals and tailors the response accordingly

I never said there's anything wrong with asking as a Christian. I said you shouldn't treat AI's answers as final authority the way you have done here. The response Gemini gave you wasn't "the truth" (I have put truth in quotes). It was the answer that matched the framework you provided, meaning that if someone from a different tradition asked the same question, they would get a different answer

The same verse, "in Him we live and move and have our being, has been interpreted in multiple ways across different traditions throughout history. An AI cannot settle that debate for you. Only direct experience and genuine spiritual exploration can.

tctrills:
So, let's understand this, if a Muslim made that statement, it will only be wise to decide the meaning from the islamic context. Same goes for a Buddhist or any other religion.
Paul a follower of Jesus Christ made the statement and now you suggest we interpret in multiple ways across different traditions throughout history. That will only get us confused and we will never get an answer.

Now, why did I use AI? I use AI for things that humans don't need to waste their effort on. AI is better suited to go through data and look for context.

On nairaland we don't exchange direct experience and genuine spiritual exploration. We exchange ideas and information and that was what I did using 3 different AI sources and they all gave me about the same information.

Now, instead of you or my good friend Deepsight telling me that AI got it wrong, I would love to listen to your argument. Show me why I am wrong, don't just tell me that I am wrong.

triplechoice:
You have misunderstood me. I have not said you are wrong. I said don't take Gemini response has final authority to win a debate or insist whatever it gives you cannot be challenged.

You can still question it on what it has given you. You accepted its responses because it resonated with. . You didn't query it for contrary opinion. Do that and learn something new today.

DeepSight:
+
Fair enough.


+
Nonetheless logic remains the pillar for these discussions.

In philosophy it is natural to have differing viewpoints. Indeed I would say that is the very life blood of philosophy. One thing which I want to make clear here is that i am not here to strictly advance Simulation Theory (or hypothesis if you like) in the way it has been propounded by others. Rather I seize upon the core idea that we may not be living in a real or base reality, that there may be something conjured or artificial about this reality and I would like to discuss that notion in different directions, via science, philosophy and even religious thought. LordReed please note.

My dear friend, how on Earth would any older traditions advance the notion from the computer angle when no such thing as computers existed until the 20th century?

It should be clear to you, following from my comment in red above, that when I say this idea has existed for millenia, I am referring to the basic idea that this world is only a reflection or shadow of more real worlds. And there is no doubt that this is an ancient idea.

I already cited Plato's Allegory of the Cave and it is pre-eminent in this regard, but here, I dug up a list of other ancient ideas which align -

1. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave (Ancient Greece)
Perhaps the most famous "shadow" metaphor in history, Plato argued in The Republic that humans are like prisoners chained in a cave, watching shadows flick across a wall.

The Concept: The shadows are the physical objects we see daily. The "real" world consists of the Theory of Forms—abstract, perfect versions of things (like the concept of "Beauty" or "a Circle " ) that exist in a higher plane.

The Takeaway: Our senses deceive us; we are looking at the projection, not the projector.

2. Maya in Advaita Vedanta (Ancient India)
In Hindu philosophy, particularly Advaita Vedanta, the concept of Maya describes the world as a powerful illusion or a "magic show."

The Concept: The material world is not "non-existent," but it is not the Ultimate Reality (Brahman). It is often compared to a "superimposition"—like mistaking a coiled rope for a snake in the dark.

The Takeaway: The physical universe is a temporary, shifting reflection of the eternal, unchanging consciousness.

3. Gnosticism and the "Kenoma" (Hellenistic Period)
Gnosticism, a collection of early mystical religious movements, took a more radical approach to the "shadow" idea.

The Concept: They believed the material world was the Kenoma (the Void or Emptiness), a flawed reflection of the Pleroma (the Fullness of the divine spiritual realm).

The Takeaway: We are "sparks of light" trapped in a lower, shadowy imitation of the true divine realm, created by a lesser deity known as the Demiurge.

4. Hermeticism: "As Above, So Below" (Ancient Egypt/Greece)
The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus provides the foundation for the idea of correspondence.

The Concept: The "Microcosm" (our world/ourselves) is a direct reflection of the "Macrocosm" (the divine/universe).

The Takeaway: Everything on Earth is a symbolic mirror of a spiritual truth. If you want to understand the heavens, look at the patterns in the dirt—and vice versa.

5. Sufi Mysticism: The World as a Mirror (Ancient Persia/Middle East)
Many Sufi poets and philosophers, such as Rumi and Ibn Arabi, described the universe as a series of mirrors reflecting the attributes of the Divine.

The Concept: God was a "hidden treasure" who desired to be known, so He created the world as a mirror to reflect His own beauty and light.

The Takeaway: Objects in this world have no light of their own; they are merely surfaces catching the "sunlight" of a spiritual source.
----Culled

Thus, above you can see that you are wrong when you claim that there are no ancient philosophical ideas that rhyme with what I am saying. There are. Indeed, ancient philosophy and mysticism are rich with this very idea. cc: Tctrills.

triplechoice:
And this is why you and Kayouzka. struggle to answer Lordreed's question:: "How do you know?. You have no direct experience of the reality you describe. To your credit, you're honest about this. Others pretend otherwise.

But please make clear your position on this topic. I think you're being ambivalent about it. If you're not strictly advancing simulation like the others, state clearly what you believe. Currently, I assume you have embraced not just simulation but also the surrounding mythology of advanced beings, trapped souls and , "loosh " harvesting. This is exactly why I said no authentic esoteric traditions teaches simulation .

chieveboy:
Always permit me when I come in having laugh..., its just funny.

Its frustrating however that the bots kept deleting your response to me. I would have loved to see it especially your response to my assertion that we merely 'agree' sort of to accept that we "Saw or perceived reality" despite that this really didn't occur at all in a more deeper 'realer' sense and reality. My take is reality can only be perceived on the level it exists in its raw 'unpainted' form where when done, it looks nothing like an orange at all and all those who concluded on the orange they saw as the reality would be disappointed if they actually get to see it in the real sense of seeing.

This is why the idea of throwing a "How do you know" or "It happened in your head" as a jab cracks me up because the thrower is boxing on smoke.

Oh come on now. I cannot believe you said the later part. I wish to let you know all major spiritual paths propagate all the above without exception:

Computer below, computer above

1a: Soul or consciousness the actual knower which operates the mind while not being local to the physicality of the mind and all its paraphernalia (cortico-enteric brain, myofascial system and the body generally ). This gives you a case of second-class observation via instrumentation...yea?

If there is death or birth, something or someone must be coming and leaving, Near-deathers prove to us something retains consciousness. This then is akin in all tone and fiber as using a Virtual Reality Headset. User is non-local to what they see, yet are 'moved' anyways and all the same!

1b: Heck its even a simulation in a simulation which occurs in harmonically organized 'octavia'. The mind too has its own chambers and inner ones which are equall to the CPU (computer). Buddhists, Sikhism, Eckankar and other eastern religions have words for this chambers and would they operate like the computer or we have to wait till they expressly say "dear NLander, it is a computer"? Lets see:

-Manas: Lower mind responsible for input and data. Input/Output

-Chitta: Storage/ memory literally

-Buddi: CPU, decision making and even AI. I would even call this one AI++. Hack this one for yourself and you can turn water to wine practically. This is an openly guarded secret in the occult.

I don't know how old Sikhism and Buddhism are


Trapped Souls[/i]

2: While the 'literal' one exists above in the upper regions of the physical plane, most walk in human bodies. The feeling is feeling trapped and thats a trapped soul. No need to complex it with the earlier one. A mystic side to this is that when the person feeling trapped dies, they likely gravitate to regions which these feelings exist. This is their heaven and it would feel exactly as it was here...oh: eternity is here and now. Heaven is now. Above is below now. If it is possible to feel trapped, now and here, then it obtains above

[i]Loosh[/b]

3: Lol, better take Jesus Christ serious if you haven't. This is going to be condensed knowledge from Eckankar and other eastern religions: Loosh is just simply a naming a last of something we all partake in but do not have a name for. There is something in science better than this illustration: Examination of loosh can be found in EEG where electrical signals produced by photons is captured as an image. If there is no better tool in science that allows us to capture non-local events that occur as result of this electric event, we would manage, but I have to let you know reality is harmonically "octaval" and produces ripples or echoes along its gamut.

This said, Loosh is a negative or positive after-effect of karma (action) that has an [b]emotional vector. As you must know, a vector has what and what again...? Good!

Scientists if memory serves me right have conducted a job with detached DNA of a person whose emotions reflects or affects the non-local DNA. That said, if gold is precious metal, I wish to let you know that emotion would fetch you a full wheel barrow of gold or better in the lower worlds especially the Astral downward.

For instance, you must have heard of organ maiming and harvesting, animal sacrifice, etc but not know what is being mined. As simple as it might sound to obtain, it is emotion aka loosh. It is a tangible, scientific, technological input as uranium to scientists, and it works for whatever end-use it is put to.

There are forms of life advanced yet not so advancd enough who put it to 'good 'use here and there. They tail or hang around a human who proves to be a good source of it and the rest is history as they say. This is why Jesus said be careful (of your thoughts and emotions becasue) "the devil is like a roaring lion seeking whom to devour". Loosh is good as gold, it alone is preconfigured code/karma... its a 'vectored intention' the way computer programs or codes are.

Lol, ritualist are really not uninformed or stupid as you think. There are some who obtain it my smashing as in the famed bado cult...

triplechoice:
Please ,I was addressing Deepsight, not you , when I said "you and Kayouzka struggle to answer Lordreed's question" . I want to know where exactly he stands on the matter, I already know your position, but his, I'm not sure of. So please don't react to that part as if you're him or holding up for him.

And there is nothing wrong in asking "how do you know" . The question is the foundation of all genuine inquiry. It is the use of ones critical faculty, not the same as the skeptic's dismissive, "It's in your head" used to brush aside spiritual experiences

Authentic spiritual traditions welcome this question. They don't run away from it. They usually like to respond with , Here's the method. Practice it and verify it yourself ".

As for my hidden posts, what they contained was me demanding that you provide proof of the "syntactic operation " you claimed to have carried out for flow. No such operation exists. Syntax is word arrangement, not word modification, which you actually did

You also claimed the meaning didn't change after your so-called syntactic flow". How can that be ? It was illusion you threw at me there. . And you then invented the strange word "backverting" , which is not found in any dictionary, as your supposed proof. So I requested that you demonstrate this "backverting" and let everyone see if what you claimed is true. But my reply was hidden each time hence my suspicion you weaponised the report button, because the original statement itself needed no fixing. It was perfect. I'm certain you can't defend what you claim or demonstrate your "backverting

Now , look at the difficult to read explanation you gave in this response of yours. Why not edit it for syntactic flow since you claim to be so good at it. writing in such a convuluted manner together with the strange words you invent and use, shows lack of respect for your readers


Please provide proof, not your personal interpretation of spiritual metaphors.

I said exactly that no authentic esoteric traditions teaches simulation. If you claim otherwise, bring the evidence, Specific quotes , Clear teachings. Not vague references. Not your reinterpretation of ancient words through modern technological lens. Like claiming that since the ancients mentioned small particles in their writings, they were actually referring to atoms.

That they ,"all teach it without exception" is your own personal conclusion, not evidence . What reliable source or sources can you provide for corroboration?



You are projecting modem technology onto authentic esoteric teachings and then claiming they support simulation.

What you describe up there about the soul is a distortion of the truth. The pulmonary system in your body moves air. A bellows moves air. Does that then mean your lungs are belows? Of course not. They perform a similar function though entirely different means.

Manas processes information through consciousness while computer through its hardware. Chitta holds impressions as a field of awareness while computer through storage/memory. Finally ,Buddhi, makes decisions through direct intuition while computer through CPU and Algorithms.
These are not the same. A field of awareness is not a hard drive. Intuition is not algorithm. Stop conflating them to prove that the world is a fake code. Eckankar has not taught you that. It's "all in your head ". lol



I'm sure you have another Jesus in mind that you are taking seriously, not the one in the Bible. Jesus said:

"Be sober minded, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour"

I

This is a warning about spiritual vigilance, about staying aware of temptation and moral weakness. It is a metaphor about the dangers of staying from righteous living.

It is not a scientific description of invisible beings harvesting emotional energy from humans. You have taken a spiritual metaphor and literalsed it into fear mongering. No one can harvest your "loosh" without your permission ". Yes, nothing can happen to you without your permission". The truth as its taught within true paths is that there are more benevolent beings everywhere doing everything to help souls come to the realisation of its true nature. And what is soul? If you really know what it is , you would stop this fear mongering.

And where did I say ritualist are stupid?. I never did. I asked Deepsight whether he subscribed to the simulation mythology. I didn't comment on the intelligence of ritualist. You invented that to create an argument I never made.

This is what you do repeatedly. You strawman my comments, then argue against what you wish I had said instead of what I actually said


Finally, I never argued that "loosh" or anything like it doesn't exist. I asked him whether he subscribe to the simulation mythology, the narrative that advanced beings invaded our world in the past, trapped souls, wiped their memories, and since then have been harvesting their emotional energy..

That is a very specific set of claims, but you have now spent paragraphs upon paragraphs to make loosh sound scientific, EEG, DNA experiments , " emotional vectors". "octave harmonics", while completely avoiding the main question. Does Deepsight believe this or not?

You are not Deepsight, so stop answering for him. You are free to respond to what I have said but allow him to answer for himself question that I directed to him personally..

I will respond later to your own reply
.

chieveboy:
you probably mentioned me by mistake on what you directed at the others. as for the rest of the above, l see how your brain works.

triplechoice:
You're not the only person I copied.. I also copied Lordreed. The reply was meant for Deepsight not you. The statement " you and Kayouzka" was directed to him, but you took it personally as if it was meant for you. Please go back to see for yourself that I quoted Deepsight to reply him.

'Now demonstrate your "backverting" and bring evidence for your syntactic operation for flow you did. Don't use this as an excuse.

It is normal here to copy others whom you want to read your post. Copying you is not the same as quoting you directly.

You should know the difference. By responding the way you did you created confusion. Any person new here would conclude you are the same as him.

I'm not saying you cannot reply . You can. But don't hold brief for him for answers I demanded from him. I wanted to be sure where he stand on the matter hence the personal question directed at him " what does he believe , not what you believe or know

And what do you mean "I see as your brain works?

Instead of you to defend what you wrote, you want to condescend.

chieveboy:
I told you I get how your brain works...by mentioning me...hold on...

Lets even assume you didn't mention me i5n that instance. In an open forum that this is, I can cut across and respond to whatever is going on here. A'fter all, the respondents would still give you their feedback. heck you could even let it be in the spate of the moment, but you see you being you....




...nibbling on on this one also. I even saw where you were arguing the English of it...




Lol, the most important thing is what really is the very very big deal in me responding that made you to particularly react to that



This man



lol, so if I can reply which I did, and with every effort Seun made to ensure the UI/UX is very self explanatory to the point of being too basic, where each thread, each mention leaves unambiguously explicit footnote and trail, how did we end up getting told one can reply but one cannot reply because it will confuse some imaginary and confused strangers?



Yea, I can be quite direct. But lets not make it about that. I am hoping to leave you with a prognosis of some sorts about how to be make wisdom from the knowledge. Your mind works rather linearly. Symptoms are excess reliance on second class information among others I wont point out.

Example:

I wrote exactly this: " 'backverting' ". If your mind works 'fractally' to the slightest degree or in this case linearly indeed, you would firstly grasp that when this occurs, the word is special when enclosed in apostrophes. It means it might be a totally invented word, is portmanteau, or the user is under 'license'. You will not for one bit eve dwell on grammar which on that instance was an issue to do with your lack of perception in a lateral or fractal manner. You think in straight line, hence you expect a book somewhere o have to mention it before it is a fact for you. And this goes to whatever you will accept as a scientific effort.

A 'linear' mind is not good or bad, it only gives you results which I referred to as "the symptoms". You become unable to grasp things like poetry or what I will refer to as 'abstraction of reality' or when you hear a proverb, you run to the market square saying someone lied. Its a nuance thing.


Bonus: If you saw someone's wife returning from a trip, and you heard the husband tell someone else his "baby girl" just arrived, fight will burst. Why? you will swear the man is lying, that it was in fact his wife who came and not his wife. This is the issue with you, and it is replete in your earlier response about me responding.

triplechoice:
This is all noise and a deflection.

You are projecting modem technology onto authentic esoteric teachings and then claiming they support simulation.

What you describe up there about the soul is a distortion of the truth. The pulmonary system in your body moves air. A bellows moves air. Does that then mean your lungs are belows? Of course not. They perform a similar function though entirely different means.

Manas processes information through consciousness while computer through its hardware. Chitta holds impressions as a field of awareness while computer through storage/memory. Finally ,Buddhi, makes decisions through direct intuition while computer through CPU and Algorithms.

These are not the same. A field of awareness is not a hard drive. Intuition is not algorithm. Stop conflating them to prove that the world is a fake code. Eckankar has not taught you that. It's "all in your head ". lol

I carried out a radical research that I am excited to share. I have noted the recursive nature of life and the cosmos. The recursions can not simply be ignored. We must question any theory and even established fact to re-access the truism of such established 'truths'. Even though it was established that Gravity is the reason we are on the surface of the Earth, we should question such established fact which has come to be know as truth.

So dive in deep!

Recursion through out life makes me ponder a lot on the true nature of the cosmos. The Ecosystem is a good example of these recursions, For eg, the Termites are an organized specie, just like humans, they have soldiers, workers, Queen etc akin to Armed Forces, Workers, Kings/Queens etc and they construct this mount which is similar to humans building real estates. If the termites believe we are their God we will never know, and we will never bother to know if they even worship us a Gods.

To make sense of the Universe alignments in Cosmos whether you believe that Earth is Center of the Universe like I now do, or if you believe the Sun is the center of the Solar System, it is equally a reflection of yet another modicum of recursion as Atoms are arranged in similar pattern with Nucleus at the center while electrons moves through their orbit.

Now that you get my drift, shall I begin with the recursion on the digitized platform of spirit.

The Man in the machine will be an analysis of the complex nature of the human body with a piloting mechanism we call Self.

When we read, we consume information in form of data, we store data in the memory, we archive memories in the mind. Yet, these are clearly what CPU components do. Input devices, peripherals, output devices and even the code used in the decryption of the cosmos has been found to exist in the source code of browsers of our WWW.

It begs the question which I intend to answer today, in my way.

Soul OS:
To run a complex machine as the human organism to install a Human Operating System as hypersensitive as SELF you need cosmic kernel. Soul, you might think is one giant 'thing' and you might visualize its form the much you want but you will be surprised that there is possibility that Soul could be as microscopic as things can get. So, whatever your perception might be, do not rule out any possibility for and of its nature.

Self came pre-installed with Soul OS, the interfaces within the brain exist neurotransmitters, the hormones that are chemical messengers that activate enzymes, yet another universe of complex nano tech machines I will be prefer to call nannites. But if Enzymes are catalysts of some sort activated by ingestion food, drinks, smokes etc as well as the environmental factors like pollution, radiations etc, then it is safe the say, that something is controlling the activities of the nannites remotely, using some form of remote controls.

I digressed, but let us return back recursion. The Soul OS came pre-installed, the interfaces are the synapses where neurotransmitters are interfaced with the Biological organism, which means the food we eat, the diets we drink, the smoking we do and all forms of consumption, even of sunlight to the skin, the radiation from the environment are simply CODED instructions given to Self to act a certain way. I repeat, what ever we consume are coded instructions given to the body to act a certain way. Food on the etheric level is a Code input into the Human Body System to act a certain way. Your morphology becomes a reflection of the things you consume, fact. It gets interesting, that Sex Acts activates sex hormones which are also nannites responsibly for the 'sweetness' a by-product of dopemin secretion. This again are transmissions from the neurotransmitters to the brain. And the brain processes the sweetness. Did I digress ? No, the Brain is the Central Processing Unit.

Soul as OS. Brain as Processors of transmission. Information as data. The skin as input device for incoming radiation from the environment. Eyes are input device for information because as we read or look, we are consuming data. Next time you have those teary eyes, the tears gland via its hormones are sending commends to the heat up resistors to secrete tears, akin to the cooling system in our computer systems. Output devices like anus, skin for sweat. The Ear is output device for sound waves just speakers are on the computer system. How can I forget the Mind. The mind is the archive of memory on the ethereal plane, and that is what the Cloud on internet does with the brain holding temporal files that is always in use just something the brain does in humans. These recursion of humans to computer systems is not odd. It is what it is and we must understand that that just like we can code the scripts and write programs and have them installed on the Digital world, we continually on daily basis are exposed to information, and we constantly store these information on our mind, something that we do with Digital world. We must continually understand that from the day we were born, the programming began. From our nannies, to our parents, siblings, extended family, teachers, doctors, nurses, libraries and infact Life. we continue to be received instructions, commands, data, and we continue to act on these informations and ways of life that was taught us by everyone around us. HOW intelligent a machine we are as individuals depend on who our teachers have been, the people we have met, the parents, that raised us and even the scientific community, which is why I ask; WHAT IF WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO ALL ALONG.

If we have been lied to all along the only way I know to solve these issues is de-programming your mind, format your brain and start all over again and that is something amnesia does, and that again is another recursion in the universe. Keep an open mind as I state the direction of my little story.

As above, so it is below; If the solar system is a recursion of the atomic system. If the universe is a recursion of the molecular system. If the organized randomness of the atomic structure is a recursion of the entropy within the universe, what guarantees do we have to believe that we are not part of a Giant Organism of which our Universe is just a microcosm ? As it is above, so it is below. Right ? But what guarantees do we also have to assume that the Giant Organism that our Universe is, is not just macrocosm of a microscopic entity?

I ask this question because we have discovered that there are trillions of microscopic entities we might call pathogens, eg bacteria, fungi, virus etc. These microbes feed on our energies. About probiotcs and antibiotics, Medical science has done substantial work by producing these biotics to manage the activities of these microscopic organisms. But there is a compelling body of work that shows that bacteria feed on our negative energies. Science has found bacteria in the mines they dug in South Africa. The article was titled : THE STRANGE BEAST THAT LIVE IN SOLID ROCK DEEP UNDERGROUND.

bbc(dot)com/earth/story/20151124-meet-the-strange-creatures-that-live-in-solid-rock-deep-underground

Drilling in kilometers into the Earth crust, these bacteria are harder than rock, the are in a state that can not be described as Life/Death for centuries, using carbon dating, we were able to know they live between 3,000 to 12,000 years but I feel the question that they live or die is a function of our consciousness, without consciousness life or death has no meaning. Interestingly, the highest temperature we can expose anything to, does not affect these beasty microbes as they withstand anything including the fall of meteorites through space as they can survive both the heat of the fall and the fall itself. Hahahahahaha

Note that these microbial entities as I will call them feed on energies. So and though you need much energy to survive and your body is about 70% water, just like our planet is 70% water (another recursion), these microbes need 0.5% of water, so they survive on energy, the bacteria survives on energy, especially the negative energy.

My research has taken me to research on the Archons, demons, Djinns, etc and I have compelling evidence that they feed on your negative energy and actually, they engineer the wars, the killings, the hatreds, the fights etc going on in our planet right now ? Some of the voices you hear on your head. Some of those suggestive reminders in your mind, those thoughts of hatred, are remotely projected to you at ethereal by demons, archons, djinns which are basically expressions of spirit. Dont be confused, demons, archons, Soul are expression of consciousness. And the Soul as Operating system, has functionality to allow installation of other apps. Other apps being the suggestive minds, the organic instincts, the reflective signals but the Decision is always on Self to decide on what to act on. Which is WHY you do not punch your mom when the silly voice in your head says you should. We are ruled by something tinier than we can see with our naked eyes.

Our lives can be messed up by these invisible entities. These entities are invisible because they are microscopic in their nature, and of course they are spiritual, after all, everything is a reflection of spirit, even soul.

So when next you think of Soul, dont bother to visualize how it will look like physically, you can’t. To know Soul, you must look into SELF. In looking into Self, I have seen to many things that baffle me so much and I have come to a startling conclusion once again that as we explore our Self we see the recursion of the entire Cosmos, of entire universes. It begs the question, WHY IS IT THAT IN ‘SELF’ WE FIND EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE ? In looking at Life and Self, we find the Universe as recursion of this entity called Self. It therefore means that Astronomy is actually the Study of Ourselves. Each of us is a Universe of its own. The More Selves we become, the more universes come to be.

So, if Self is Universe, and we are all are the Cosmos then, it there fore means that Self is the Conscious flow of spirit projected into VOID from the Source Field.

My advise, take charge of your mind, some auto-suggestions come from negative entities, master your mind, master your soul, fear no fear transmission of demons at night, these are microbes, Bleep with them when you can, after all. If you as Self can master your Soul, then you are the entity in charge of your soul. So, Self is Entity that governs its Universe. When you look out there, you might be looking inside of yourself. As above, so within. We are a Universe, each of us. Self, is the entity that governs its universe. We are God over our respective Universe.

It is a Hologram. When you die here, your universe has been recycle via the blackhole and Self is projected to alternate Universe where life continues. That is why you jet towards a tunnel as photon during Soul Travel.

Its a Hologram.

chieveboy:
I will reply the below now:

Let me know why your kind of mind won't work for these things. Note the boldened.

The attached is an image of a modern B2 bomber which was heavily inspired by the ancient peregrine falcon.
When you kind of reasoning is applied to this, one would be projecting the modern into the ancient.
A simple task of drawing parallels wont work.\

If we do an in house sanity check about whether I was projecting anything into esoteric teachings, we will do it this way:

1: We will employ a concept you propagated here in the line of 'as above, so below'. This means the esoteric teachings (dealing with all things "above" dove-tails into the most mundane form of manifestation or the physical. If so, one can never be wrong drawing parallels because parallelism is the rule of manifestation where the mystical or spiritual gives birth or more apt 'morphs' or 'dovetails' into the physical

2: We can have Deepsight and Lordreed check out the esoteric meaning of Manas, Chitta and the Bhuddi. Their goal is to isolate the fundamental functional principles behind each and do same for the computer. Then they compare the two side by side if both are dissimilar.

chieveboy:
Source https://www.nairaland.com/3559711/man-machine
Lordreed, Deepsight

The above quote is not necessary, its just for more perspective. It is quoted from a 2017 thread here on NL.

I aim to give my summative take on the argument if we are in a simulative environment or not. My take is that we are. Further, that contrary to what Triplechoice asserts that no mystical path propagates that idea, I wish to state that almost all the advanced do in fact, taking Eckankar as an example.

Note that the outer form and teachings of Eckankar are an off-shoot of sort of Sikhism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and almost all esoteric paths stripped of what the modern day founder will call digressions and detours to the ultimate focus on Soul returning back to God (true home) rather than psychic phenomena or demonstration of powers, The beautiful heavens with streets of gold, Aliens, the rulers of the planes and all such Fantastics and Wowsers. Note also that not all who register for school go through the school, so they can be uninformed.

Eckankar teaches that there are worlds of non-creation and there are the created ones. We can close the chapter on whether this world is a computer simulation or is reality if we ask two fundamental questions:

a: If "God" created heavens and earth, where was he living?

b: If God created a world for living in, what are the chances it is not a state-of-the-art computer where perception is only possible here only via instrumentation

Bonus question: If it is not a simulation, and not created by any entity, why the requirement for using instruments of perception before perception is possible in it?





Eckankar teaches that a being is placed in charge of this world of creation who is part of the creation process. The goal is to provide a conducive platform for the possibility of conditions that lead to pain or pleasure, joy or sadness and all things that can only exists due to its opposite. In the true non-simulated world, these are not possible.

How was it pulled of? This being takes on the pure singular bandwidth of reality emanating from the pure worlds above their own, forks it into two primary streams as the positive and negative. This in a sense is a corruption of purity even as for the above to reach the below, it must be stepped down or diluted with more corruption. The very template of this being is fashioned for this job. He forged other beings as well and placed them in charge of the other levels of manifestation lower than their own and down to the physical plane. These are the sub rulers or "God" depending on who is fortunate or unfortunate enough to meet them.

The above said, it was stated expressly that these worlds are impure and reality here is only via illusion (duality)--a play with the light as in pointing a laser at a cat to catch. Illusion? If I define this "Illusion" as "simulation", someone on here would not be so discerning to know it is all the same.

So if the ruler wishes to do their job keeping the created world in order, wouldn't they fashion it to update, delete, generate, store and sustain, etc?

If one is in doubt, the above quote from a 2017 thread may shed more light, about how humans actually simply copy the working nature of the ultimate computer itself.

Anyone asking you to provide where in any ancient religion it is written verbatim that the world is a a giant computer and that we are in a simulation should let you know where it is written in the year that bird was made that the B2 bomber is a copy of the bird.

...I mean, the idea that it sounded reasonable to request that ancients texts of 10k+ years ago must state that the inventions of later years are a biomimicry of them is just crazy.

triplechoice:
You have finally revealed your mission on this thread which I already hinted at when you jumped in to misquote me and use it to accuse me of inconsistency.

Now, you have continued from where you stopped after refusing to take responsibility for your wrong accusation of me. I really wonder what you are learning in Eckankar. Eckist are not known to behave the way you do. Too much ego on display.

Listen, I did not say ancient religious texts did not mentioned simulation. Why would they use the word.? I said no authentic esoteric traditions teaches or describe anything that can be compared to how a computer operates. why? . Because what they taught in the past about the creative process, how the world came to be, has not changed

They taught and still teach that the creation of the world was first an inner process before Its manifestation in the outer. The outer is a "reflection" of what went before in the inner.

This same process is what we are here to learn and and master so we become co-creators .

So , what in this can be compared to the universe being a simulation created by advanced beings to trapped souls and harvest them?

I asked you to provide evidence for your claim they were referring to simulation in their own way. What you brought was caricatured version of "As above so below. So below as above" : "Computer up , Computer below" and deliberately omitting Ahankara which exposes everything.

And please don't present Eckankar mythology about the inner world as fact. It's fiction. Everyone knows this ,except members of the group. Even some Eckist are aware but choose to remain silent.

Modified. They teach that the outer universe is not separate from the ones that precedes it. They say there is no inside or outside. Both the inner and outer exist as a continuum. The universe is not an object in space, but time and space itself. Computer simulations , on the other hand, are objects in time and space, created within an existing framework.

This is the difference simulation proponents cannot erase.

So don't believe anyone who tells you the universe is an object created by advanced beings in time and space . They have it backwards.

chieveboy:
Please you want to grasp the semantics of that "misquote" and see if you still hold this viewpoint. It should naturally occur after you respond to the earlier challenge on parsing that paragraph..

I am not sure this will work. Eckists are if religions or path must define one are steered towards being themselves, and so it happens that you met with the rathe blunt one. Note that on the other thread on Masters, you have tried this same line of invoking the gods of eckankar to come to your aid to no avail, I wonder why you
believe it will work. .

But we did, we presented how ancient text described the different chambers of the mind and how all of it is literally parallel to how computers work without exception. Not wanting to indulge in micro-sight when I ignored your response about the fourth chamber responsible for the 'I' which computers too have..

I related Eckankars notion on how creation occurs and the idea of beings stationed to man the system, where they perform all of the above including and not limited to imprisonments, trapping, release, discipline, modify, edit, delete, etc. Computers are even noted to have 'viruses' and all that..

You may not be aware so lets indulge this again ignoring "caricature" seeing that it is a 'reach' problem and not based on any fundamentals of what I said.

All computers have the Ahankara. For computers all over the world, its starts with unique firmware and OS signatures also the Mac Address. One of the reason I keep hammering on linear thinking is that it limits your mind and blurs its vision.

The internet, Networks, etc will not work the moment systems and networks cease having their Ahankara and the three others. Moreover no animate or in-animate object lacks this.

I am sure this will steer that reaction from you again and its better that way.man.

. One would expect that based on the elucidation that Eckankar was derived from most, if not all ancient religions, you will be wise enough to not bring up any attack from that angle due to the potential of associative generalization that could occur where an attack on one is an attack on all, but no, your mind no reach that side.

Lol, lets assume we even gobble down all the above hook line and sinker but make the exception of thinking deeper.

1: "There is no inside or outside"

2: Both inner and outside are a continuum

Doesn't this make whatever that is inside this continuum not be anything one can accept and still have an "on the other hand" to say in same sentence? By the way, where is this "framework" indexed? Outside? Inside?

Lets move on sir:

How much do you know about the boldened 'continuum' aspect of the universe, and does your understanding of this phenomena and principle lead you into anything near the realization that this is very quality or nature of this continuum in manifesting or reflecting physically, (and in other compatible frameworks) its very nature, quality and properties from top to bottom as in the practical example of man. its [url]Fractal[/url] aspect as a Romanesco broccoli for one?

In other words if we backvert the paragraph above and ask is if the fractal nature of this same plant is a representation of the continuum?

Does the answers posits then that

1: Nothing is original or exclusive physically?.

2: Given 1 above, are all things physical man and nature-made not mimicries of the continuum without exception given that exceptions are not possible?

Oh you actually murdered your science up there .

triplechoice:
Oh. You finally admit you misquoted me ?


Why did you deliberately change my words to misrepresent me and when called out for it, claimed you only carried out syntactic operation for flow and also that the meaning of the original statement did not change?

If the meaning did not change and you knew it wouldn't change after your so-called imaginary syntactic operation, why change it in the first place?
You cannot answer this because you know the meaning changed hence the strange word, "backverting " you invented to make it difficult to disprove you.Now, the latest is "parsing the paragraph" It is a shame

You have spent paragraphs upon paragraphs deflectimg Instead of admitting one simple truth, you were wrong

The ostrich buries its head in the sand. You bury yours in invented words , obfuscation, and false justification. But no matter what you do, the truth has a way of being seen



You have started again. Please can you bring evidence from the thread where I invoked the "gods of Eckankar"? And why would I invoke Eckankar fictitious gods? What for?

I did not invoke Eckankar gods. I was observing that your behaviour reflects on the group you represent. If you say Eckists are "steered towards being themselves", then your behaviour, refusing to admit your mistakes, accusing others wrongly and inventing strange words to justify it , is what "being yourself" looks like, then that says something about what Eckankar produces these days.


Who is the "we" you are referring to here?. No other person on this thread has mentioned the four parts of the mind. You only described three and deliberately omitted the most important one and now want to justify it with a vague "micro -sight" statement, your usual tactics when you don't want to own up to something.

You have projected modem invention, computers onto Eckankar's mythology.


Ignoring "caricature" seeing that it is a "reach" problem and not based on any fundamentals of what I said " , is not different from speaking in tongues. You alone know what you have said there. It is vague.


You are projecting. You don't need to psychoanalyse how my mind works as it won't help you to win the debate. Concentrate on what you have to say. Do that vary well and let the public judge by my response if what you think of me is true. Stop the gaslightimg. That is what I said..

And no, computers have no Ahankara. MAC address and the others don't correspond to it.
.
Arguing that computers have Ahankara proves that you have no clue what it actually is.

MAC address is a static identifier assigned by a manufacturer while Ahankara is what gives animate objects conscious awareness, the sense of "I am"

A computer does not know it exists. it does not wake up and think about its day. It has no subjective experience, no sense of self.

If you think a Mac address is equivalent to self -awareness, you have no business debating these topics. .
.

I understand why a someone like you would defend Eckankar mythology. It is because of what they have made you believe.

It is euphemism to declare that "Eckankar was derived from most, if not all ancient traditions". The reality is this :it was created by Paul Twitchell in the 1960s. He copied from Sikhism, Buddhism, and even Scientology.

The book, "The Making of a spiritual Movement" by David Lane documents this extensively.

"Confession of a God seeker" by Ford Johnson, a former higher initiate of Eckankar who helped to make the group popular all over the world, exposed the truth behind the religion.

But be warned. If you want to read those books, do o so in secret. They are banned books within the group. If any other current member know you have read them or reading them, you would be reported and sanctioned and or even removed from the group.

Twitchell invented a fictional lineage to give his creation credibility. It was heartbreaking and almost affected my mind when I got to know the truth. Not so, for some others around the world. It resulted in suicide and shattered lives. I know of a high initiate in Nigeria who angrily went to the Eck centre in his locality to take back all the items he donated to furnish it. Why? I felt duped after knowing the truth.But I'm a survivor. I survived it. And now, after more than 25 years after, you that found Eckankar on Nairaland, want to tell me what?

Attacking Eckankar fabricated mythology found in books like "The Far country" The Tigers Fangs " and " The Tallons of Time " is not attacking authentic esoteric traditions Twitchell stole from . Those traditions stand on their own. They don't need Eckankar's distortions to validate them

I don't blame those still in Eckankar. I blame the system that traps them, just as I was trapped. But when anyone defends the system's lies, they become part of the problem.


.

You don't understand what "continuum" means. It doesn't mean everything is identical and indistinguishable. It means everything is connected interrelated without fundamental separation.

This is the only response I can afford you for now. It is difficult to make sense of the things you write. The bolded " It's fractal aspect as a Romanesco broccoli" is vague. Too many convuluted statements that is hard to make sense of.

If you edit your comment and send it again, I will reply to it. But for now, no. I can no longer stress myself rereading and rereading. This iis not English. You even used the word " backvert" without putting in quotes . That is you talking to yourself.

.
You murdered science" is not an argument. It is dismissal without substance. If you think I'm wrong about cosmology show me where. Explain how the universe being space-time is incorrect. Provide sources and demonstrate your understanding .

chieveboy:
Its takes sense to make sense of things.

triplechoice:
Coming from someone who believes Mac address is equivalent to self -awareness, that is rich.

You think computers and all inanimate objects have consciousness , and proved you cannot distinguish between a static identifier and the experience of ,"I am," .

And now, you want to lecture others about making sense?

The irony is lost in you. Next time don't jump in to debate topics you are incapable of debating.

chieveboy:

triplechoice:
You bolded "static identifier" and ",I am" as if they mean the same thing, but they are nott

Since you cannot see the difference let me explain it for you.

Static identifier is a label assigned by a manufacturer while "I am" (Ahankara) is conscious self -awareness of seif.

Static identifier exist as data, not experience while "I am" exist as subjective feeling.

Computers are not aware they have static identifier.. But a being knows it exists

In summary, a static identifier means a computer can be identified by others. It doesn't mean it can identify itself.

For instance , your phone has a. Ip address. That doesn't mean your phone wakes up in the morning and thinks, "I am a phone". It doesn't ponder its existence . You can even change your IP address. But Ahankara is your unique identity which is integral to your being. It cannot be changed anyhow you like.

You have conflated being identified with seif awareness. They are not the same

If you still struggle to see the difference, after reading my clear explanation, then I was correct you have no business debating these topics

You have conflated being identified with seif awareness. They are not the same

chieveboy:
Possession and operation of the 'Id' doesn't work all the same across board for even all living organisms for starters including humans as in the event of 'homo-sapiens' and 'homo sapiens sapiens' upgrade. For some species or possessors of mind, its just okay to exercise the instinctive (robotic or chita) parts of the mind with no little to no usage of the two others not to talk of self awareness despite that the capacity to is imbued.

When it is spoken of human computers being a recursion of the mind and also the larger computer system housing and running everything called the universe, this is with regards to copying or replicating the main thing for as much and far as is needed or physically possible.

It is a folly to say that the aircraft made out of a bird does not give birth, and for that reason, they are dissimilar. How about that the manner this metal bird gives birth is by being the template for creating more? This is lateral thinking and fractal reasoning. Insisting it must copulate, gestate and give birth is a reasoning only you can produce.

The 'I' doesn't just stop at and as an idea of self. It plays other deterministic functions like morphology. "as a man thinketh, so is he". If the I is happy, it flows to the face--this is just the dynamic short-term characteristics or function, there is the side of it that deals with nativity or long-term physical morphology from shape of body parts, looks, traits and DNA-ic archetype. So for some possessors of the 'I'-capacity, its just okay to do as much as physical possible even for living oragnisms.

That established, when it is time to replicate the I function of mind which is mandatory for anything to have--even for inanimate physical objects, It doesn't have to say "I am me, I know I am me" as a human would lol, because even for humans, it takes a while for that recognition to occur, and that doesn't take away the existence or possession of that faculty. Sometimes, exhibition and exercising of the ID never happens for a human. Its occurs in varying degrees of counting from 10 to -0++, we would be wrong to conclude they posses the 'I' not.

A pencil must maintain all its atomic structure in orbit, axis and mathematic configuration of the locations of each atom within that sphere as an exhibition of its 'I'-ness. This is as much as it can physically go as far as exercising this mandatory possession of the 'I' 'faculty' or principle of the "I am" that I spoke of earlier for all inanimate things goes for it. 'Forget' all the mathematical configurations and its gone.

So to bring the point home, a MAC address (physical Identity) Firmware/OS/Signature (mind/soul) determines the morphology (looks and shapes) and also the psychology ( behavior) of computers (as part of design thinking). These are what constitutes the 'I' of computers and also the soul. With those, computers wake up and never forget they are those, and yes, the phone never forgets its a phone. It doesn't need say the words lol, even humans rarely say "I am a human" to understand or function as one. They run over a firmware/soul system much as humans, have perceptive sensoria as us, store memories, they DO NOT need to take a shit as humans when they do as in how you would want them to do what passes as "self awareness" like humans. Thats painting reality or creation with human as the epicenter Lol, Nawa o .

Moreover Lately, humans have added more depth to computers much as humans had their depths years ago: Its called AI.

Lol, the fundamental basis for self awareness is what? In other words what do you start providing when giving something the capacity for self awareness? What is that self awareness being aware of? Nawa o

triplechoice:
We are not debating whether all living beings exhibit self -awareness in the same way, or why some seems to express it differently, or even why some hardly ever show it even when they have the capacity to do so.

What we are debating is whether machines have the inherent capacity to exhibit self -awareness at all. I say they don't. .

Ahankara is what gives self -awareness. This faculty is not present in machines. Ahankara is integral to consciousness. It cannot be created in a lab and attached to a machine to make it develop the capacity for self -awareness

Self -awareness is not a matter of degree or expression, it is either present in conscious beings or absent in machines. Your attempt to blur the distinction by talking about variations among living things is irrelevant to the question of whether machines possess any such faculty at all.



The universe is too vast and mysterious for it to be reduced to the mechanical workings of computer system created by humans. What you are arguing is the same as what some argued in the past when they projected the mechanism of the clock onto to the cosmos.

Your attempt to reduce the cosmos to a computer system contradicts the very spiritual truths you claim you respect




Reproduction by living beings to produce their own kind is not the same as manufacturing by humans to mass produce machines that have no consciousness. Insisting they are the same "is a reasoning only you can produce.

Reproduction is not manufacturing. Don't confuse it.


Whether the "I" "does not stop as an idea of self or not". is irrelevant. The question is : Do computers have a sense of self?. Are they aware they exist?. A simple yes or no, not word salad would do



I did not say living beings become self -aware only when they can affirm the metaphor "I am". The metaphor describes the state of being conscious , being aware of ones existence. New born babies are not yet conscious of their own existence, but that does not mean they lack the capacity to develop it later.

Machines do not possess that capacity at all, which is why the can never exhibit self-awareness at any stage
Self-awareness is a matter of demonstration, not affirmation. Stop interpreting literally what is meant to. be a metaphor.


A pencil does not "maintain" its atomic structure. Its atoms are held together by the laws of physics, not by any sense of self. If the pencil had an "I", it would need to be aware of itself, which is not..

You are confusing the passive existence of matter with the active experience of consciousness.




You keep trying to give machines qualities they do not have. They have no mind, no soul, no sense of self. They run programs. That's all

A Mac address is not a soul. It is a label, a static identifier assigned by a manufacturer for network communication. It exist so that routers and switches can send data to the correct device. The device itself does not know it has a Mac address. It does not experience , " I am this device"

Firmware and operating system are not minds or souls. They are programmed instruction. Your phone does not. "wake up and never forgets it's a phone". It powers and runs code. There is no consciousness behind it





You want to blur the lines between simulation and consciousness.

AI replicating the human thinking process is not the same as being conscious that it thinks. An AI is not aware it is thinking nor is it conscious that it exists .


The fundamental basis for self awareness is consciousness. Consciousness , soul, cannot be created and given to machines.

You believe that by assigning a Mac address, ot by writing a firmware, you are conferring the "I am" onto a device. That's like believing that pasting a catalogue number onto a book gives it consciousness
[/b]
I hope you take a moment to reflect on why you need to defend the idea that machines have souls or are self conscious. You are no longer debating but Don quixotiing [/b]

I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out that this way of thinking is not enlightenment. It is a sign that your mind has become untethered from the basic distinction that make conversation possible, and so the discussion ends here.
Thank you for your time

You are confusing the passive existence of matter with the active experience of consciousness.

A pencil does not "maintain" its atomic structure. Its atoms are held together by the laws of physics, not by any sense of self. If the pencil had an "I", it would need to be aware of itself, which is not..

chieveboy:
Other than a memory, you find nothing inside of this 'sense of self' or 'awareness of self' that is spoken of. A person holds a memory of what they think they are, and proclaim they are that. This memory is what keeps the person from acting as a goat, or stone. This is their unique MAC identity of which the 'DNS' is their human name. Dissect the 'Id' and its just memory with programs and codes and signatures marauding as DNA.

Computers too, same. Both simply booth up, load dependencies, run the machine, sleep. In sleep, all sense of self-awareness goes to 0 or near that. Both forms of self awareness are after-effects of programming. Both an be programmed. Both are machines, one biological, another man-made.





If there is such a thing as "passive experience of matter", I will let you know. What does it even mean in the reality of things this "passive experience of matter"? define it in your personal understanding of physics or from those online resources of yours.




Why does the very atoms 'arranging' that particular pencil not get 'decide' they would rather do something better with their lives?

That they 'chose' to corporate with this very pencil is an Id or memory in there programmed (via carving) by someone, and the laws of physics takes care of the rest. You will fall back to the explainer on how these things work differently for every other thing.

Nature or life is run by the law of economy, hence it is recursive--building on its template making everything above being below even if not exactly. If so, everything must have a sense of self and must 'maintain' a memory of that, else it wont 'exist'. It will disintegrate even as a human goes mental losing theirs while for others, its disappearance or disintegration.

So do not make it seem like the laws of physics idly or randomly decided to uphold the manifestation of a pencil into place in space and time.

triplechoice:
A pencil does not choose. It does not have a life. It does not. " decide" anything. The laws of physics hold it together, not sense of self, not memory, not "carved program"

So when you insist that a pencil has an "I" and that it " cooperates". with its existence, you have left the ground where conversation is possible.

I have said what I needed to say. I will not follow you further down this path because I know where it leads to

Goodbye

triplechoice:
A pencil does not choose. It does not have a life. It does not. " decide" anything. The laws of physics hold it together, not sense of self, not memory, not "carved program"

So when you insist that a pencil has an "I" and that it " cooperates". with its existence, you have left the ground where conversation is possible.

/ I have said what I needed to say. I will not follow you further down this path because I know where it leads to

Goodbye

DeepSight:
Dear LordReed, following our discussion here -

https://www.nairaland.com/8617978/real-truth-world-13-years

I promised to open a new thread to specifically discuss the idea that we live in a simulation.

So here goes.

Let me start by saying that the idea that the world is a mere "shadow" or "reflection" of a kind is an old one in history, philosophy and indeed religion. Plato's Allegory of the Cave springs to mind in this regard, where he describes a scenario where some men are imprisoned in a cave all their lives and only ever see the shadows of real beings passing by outside the cave.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave describes a group of prisoners chained in a dark cavern, facing a wall where they see only the shadows of objects carried before a fire behind them. Having known nothing else, they mistake these flickering silhouettes for reality itself. When one prisoner is freed and dragged into the sunlight, he is initially blinded and pained by the brilliance of the true world, eventually realizing that the Sun is the source of all life and truth, while the cave was merely a dim reflection. However, upon returning to the cave to enlighten his peers, he is mocked and rejected, as the prisoners prefer the comfort of their familiar illusions over the difficult ascent toward objective knowledge.
---Culled.

Indeed the same idea of the illusory nature of the world is ubiquitous in religion as well. The Holy Quran describes the world as a shadow. Al-Hadid Surah 57:20. And so does the Holy Bible - 1 Chronicles 29:15.

The Question of Reality

Now the question is just how "real" our reality is. At this juncture I would like to correct your notion of illusion. You should note that even a hallucination has some reality to the extent that it is an experience. Even a video game has some reality to the extent that it is experienced. Thus it seems to me that when you place the test as asking one to jump off a building and see the result, you are missing the point. That we are having an experience in this world of some kind or the other is beyond cavil, the question is just how substantial in reality that experience is. For me, it is clear that we cannot proceed without establishing what we mean by something that is properly real.

The definition I work with is something that exists in substance by itself as opposed to something which is only put on: as opposed to a set of images, feeling or sounds which are cast before the experiencer merely to experience and which can be removed in the same way as one may wake from a dream, or one may remove a VR Headset, or one may come out of a video game or a movie or the like. It is my contention that this life is similar to a contrived set of experiences cast before us but lacking in the substantiality of its own base realness.

You have to ask yourself, for the day is surely coming, when Virtual Reality technology will be so advanced as to be completely indistinguishable from our reality - you have to ask yourself if such VR experiences will thus be "real." You see, in such VR experiences there will still be cause and effect just as jumping from a building and falling down, and you could even be made to feel pain therein.

Now, let us examine the fundamental argument for Simulation Theory.

Simulation Theory

What is Simulation Theory?

Simulation theory is the philosophical and scientific hypothesis that our entire reality—including the universe, Earth, and all conscious beings—is actually an artificial construct, such as a highly advanced computer program. Rooted in Nick Bostrom's 2003 "Simulation Argument," the theory suggests that if a civilization achieves the "post-human" stage of technological maturity, they would likely have the computing power to run "ancestor simulations" indistinguishable from reality; therefore, statistically, it is more probable that we are living in one of many simulated environments rather than in the original "base" reality.
----Culled.

Think about the above. It is logically sound and rationally consistent. The statistical likelihood of us living in what would be "base reality" is close to zero. This is something that many serious thinkers understand and acknowledge and thus I wondered at the slight edge of mockery with which you seemed to be approaching the subject in the other thread.

As argued by Philosopher Nick Bostrom: If any civilization eventually develops the power to run "ancestor simulations," they will likely run millions of them. This means there would be millions of "fake" realities and only one "real" one, making the odds that we are in the original "Base Reality" about one in a billion.

Other Arguments for a Simulated Reality

Binary Code: In the other thread, I showed you the discovery of binary code in the background of our physical universe. You and others have interpreted it to mean that the scientist was merely describing reality using binary code. This is not the case at all. The reason that there is that binary code similarity is because he actually saw in the base background of the physical universe repeating patterns in binary form. The fact that he then describes them as such does not take away from the fact that those patterns exist. Dr. James Gates Jnr explained that he found "doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes" embedded in the theoretical equations that describe the universe.

But beyond this, let me extract for you other key arguments -

Beyond the binary code discovery by Dr. James Gates, the most prominent scientific argument for a programmed reality comes from the field of Digital Physics, specifically centered on the idea of Computational Efficiency. The strongest suggestion today isn't a single "smoking gun" like a line of code, but rather a series of "coincidences" in physics that mirror how we optimize modern video games.

1. Quantum "Lazy Rendering" (The Observer Effect) In high-end video games, the computer doesn't render the entire world at once; it only "draws" the room the player is currently in to save processing power. Physicists like Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom point out that the Observer Effect in quantum mechanics works exactly like this. A particle exists in a blurry state of "probability" (the wave function) until someone looks at it, at which point it "collapses" into a definite state.
----Culled.

The Double Slit Experiment

This here is where I bring in the double slit experiment. I was shocked to my bone that you claimed it had nothing to do with consciousness. The experiment is well known to have unveiled the way outcomes change based on whether there is conscious observation or not. Your arguments about instruments are neither here nor there for always the instruments were only aids for observation by conscious beings. And it remains puzzling till this day how that "observer effect" works out in quantum physics. However it strongly suggests that our reality is only rendered before us upon observation and thus that it is not intrinsically there - thereby destroying your claim on object permanence. And yes sir, I say this as an adult and not a child and the scientists who discovered all these were not children either.

The object permanence you observe is obviously a built in factor of the program, just as if you store something somewhere in a video game, you will return to meet it there when you log in. This does not mean that the thing was anywhere there or anywhere in fact while you were logged out. It was not.

I will post separately on the double slit experiment in order to nail the point that conscious observation was central to outcomes and this alone hammers home the point that this reality is an artificial construct.

2. The Universe's "Pixel Rate" (The Planck Scale) In a digital world, you can only zoom in so far before you hit a pixel—a minimum unit of space. In our universe, there is a theoretical "smallest" possible length called the Planck Length.T he Sim Argument: If the universe were truly "natural" and analog, you should be able to divide space infinitely. The fact that there is a hard "resolution limit" suggests our reality may be discrete (made of bits) rather than continuous.
----Culled.

This is why I mentioned how our reality is pixelated. Zooming in one can see that it is so constructed in bits. This again is a pointer.

3. The "Processor Speed" (The Speed of Light) Just as a computer processor has a maximum clock speed that limits how fast information can travel across a circuit board, our universe has a universal speed limit: the speed of light.

4. The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT, argues for the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH). He notes that the deeper we look into reality, the more the "physical" stuff disappears, leaving only mathematical structures behind. The Argument: If you look at a video game character, they look like a person, but they are actually just a collection of numbers and equations. Tegmark argues that since our universe is perfectly described by math, it may literally be a mathematical structure (or a program) rather than a physical thing that math just happens to describe.
-----Culled.

Let me leave these as my opening arguments on this matter. Further down the line I will introduce other arguments, some may be scientific but beware that I will also dive into the metaphysical and philosophical in discussing this matter.

But before I close this post I must comment on your argument that there doesn't exist enough energy to create the simulation that is our world. Are you telling me that you know the sum total of all energy available in the universe or even all reality? I pointed out to you not only that it is impossible for a being within any given reality to know the level of energy it takes to render that reality, it cannot possibly even know the kind of energy.

It surprised me that this was lost on you because it is as simple as saying you cannot assess or access what is outside your universe, or can you? It is utterly impossible and inconceivable.

One thing for sure is that we are experiencing this reality be it real or artificial so somehow or the other sufficient energy exists to have presented it. The trouble with your supposition is that the particular calculations of scientists in terms of how they would believe a virtual reality such as this can be rendered must be the way it is in fact done, which is nothing but ridiculous assumption.

Over to you for now.

cc: OurTruth, SporaD8, Kayouzka, triplechoice,

KobolanderSegun:
We could actually be the size of micro organisms that a not seen. They say there are millions of bacteria on a pin head. What if our planet is the size of a pin head and the universe is the size of Lagos State in reference to the pin head.

I have some questions about the particular theory that things only exist based on your perception of them. My house exists regardless of my thinking of it. The world exists regardless of our thinking of things. That is why if there is a chair on the road and you tell people to write down what they saw on the road they will come up with the same chair on the road because that chair exists and does not collapse or shrink when people are there or are not there.

DeepSight:
+
Its not what if. The size of the known universe alone means this is the reality, in fact, it will only be the case that the known universe itself is probably a dot on a pinhead compare to the unknown universes, multiverses, planes, dimensions, etc. Its a very sobering thought.

And I cannot resist chooking something else inside. If it is so, there will probably be beings larger than our entire planet, larger than our entire galaxy, etc, just as we walk around beside pinheads and on one pinhead, a planet may exist.


+
This goes to the matter of object permanence which LordReed insists upon. The fact remains that if it is a program so made, we will always see an object which is programmed to be in a particular position based on the algorithm and the workings of the program. Such an object will always be accounted for. This does not mean that it is not a programmed reality, virtual reality or the result of some advanced software.

Lordreed, apologies I have taken a while, been turning around in my head how I can present the case better to your very exacting mind.