₦airaland Forum

KobolanderSegun:
The fact that we can create is proof that we are not programmed. Ai finds it extremely hard to be original ai is trained to copy. Ai at this point in time cannot create anything new.
The fact that man is a creative being with independent creativity is hard to use the particulate collapse theory. Since my creation is in my head and in my head alone for me to bring my creation to life and for everyone to see means only two things. We al programmed to see things the same way or there is no programming and my mind programmes what people will see.
If we are programmed it will begger to ask who or what is doing the programming. It is random programing or is it planned programming.

It cannot be random programing and it cannot be programming by chance, Random programing will create different uncountable variations since it is random. An untidy room is a randomly tidied room with no planning and no structure gives rise to chaos and confusing like an untidy room. A room that is tidy does not happen by randomness it happens by careful thinking, planning and keeping to the schedule and structure of the arranged items.

The collapse of all structures. Structures that do not obey laws collapse rapidly through time. Even in a democracy if laws are disobeyed you have anarchy, dictatorship or tyranny. The constitution serves a means to preserve the country.

The Egyptian pyramids do not stand by chance they stand by mathematical prowess of the Egyptians.

Is the Programming Conscious or unconscious ?

What is Unconscious cannot create anything because consciousness and awareness are 5 And 6. A man in a coma is Unconscious and he cannot do anything. This goes to show what is Unconscious cannot create Consciousness.

+
I dont argue for randomness being at the root of anything. I also dont argue for any unconscious factor. There is a good argument that the root of all reality is primordial consciousness.

DeepSight:
+
I dont argue for randomness being at the root of anything. I also dont argue for any unconscious factor. There is a good argument that the root of all reality is primordial consciousness.

But where does that Primordial consciousness come from

KobolanderSegun:
But where does that Primordial consciousness come from

+
Whatever is at the root of all reality must be self existent.

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.

No sweat bro.

Lemme ask you this, how do you differentiate between base reality and a simulated one.

DeepSight:
+
Whatever is at the root of all reality must be self existent.

I guess That is the only possible conclusion when all parameters are looked at rationally and using our reality as a test sample

LordReed:
No sweat bro.

Lemme ask you this, how do you differentiate between base reality and a simulated one.

+
This is a very very deep, poignant and apt question.

There are certain things to bear in mind. Do you remember our discussion as to whether machines/ robots could ever be self conscious? If so, you must remember the distinction made there - to wit - that a machine can be made so perfectly that it is impossible to determine if it is actually conscious or merely perfectly replicating the behavior of a conscious being.

In this same way, it must occur to us that it may well be that it is impossible to distinguish between base reality and a simulated one.

For me, however, a few pointers exist. One is death. Another is the fact that it is possible to manipulate perception. The mere fact that we can hallucinate is deeply telling. Also several paranormal things such as out-of-body experiences are telling.

DeepSight:
+
This is a very very deep, poignant and apt question.

There are certain things to bear in mind. Do you remember our discussion as to whether machines/ robots could ever be self conscious? If so, you must remember the distinction made there - to wit - that a machine can be made so perfectly that it is impossible to determine if it is actually conscious or merely perfectly replicating the behavior of a conscious being.

In this same way, it must occur to us that it may well be that it is impossible to distinguish between base reality and a simulated one.

For me, however, a few pointers exist. One is death. Another is the fact that it is possible to manipulate perception. The mere fact that we can hallucinate is deeply telling. Also several paranormal things such as out-of-body experiences are telling.

Why is death a pointer to you?

LordReed:
Why is death a pointer to you?

+
Because it reveals just how artificial the covering of matter is. The way the body dissolves. There is something about it which shows that the whole thing is put on. I am not sure I can explain it.

I have seen many corpses but one struck me most. My cousin when she died. The corpse looked like a plastic doll. I can't get the sight out of my mind. Something about it struck me clearly and I could see how artificial the whole thing is.

I will try write what I have been meaning to write today and death will be part of it. I will expand on it.

PS: Did it mean anything to you when I referred to the fact that our perception can be easily manipulated?

DeepSight:
+
Because it reveals just how artificial the covering of matter is. The way the body dissolves. There is something about it which shows that the whole thing is put on. I am not sure I can explain it.

I have seen many corpses but one struck me most. My cousin when she died. The corpse looked like a plastic doll. I can't get the sight out of my mind. Something about it struck me clearly and I could see how artificial the whole thing is.

I will try write what I have been meaning to write today and death will be part of it. I will expand on it.

PS: Did it mean anything to you when I referred to the fact that our perception can be easily manipulated?

I don't really understand why a dead body would make you think life is fake given what we know about life. A dead body behaves exactly how it should under the circumstances. If it behaved differently, I'd have understood but it doesn't. Even if it was a program why would the programmers let you think that it was a sign of life being a program? That to me is a sign it isn't a program/simulation or else they'll just programmed that thought away. Which leads to your mention of our easily manipulated perceptions. If there was some shadowy behind the scenes manipulation going on, why are they leaving you with such thoughts? Why haven't they easily manipulated away your perception of this universe as a simulation?

LordReed:
I don't really understand why a dead body would make you think life is fake given what we know about life. A dead body behaves exactly how it should under the circumstances. If it behaved differently, I'd have understood but it doesn't. Even if it was a program why would the programmers let you think that it was a sign of life being a program? That to me is a sign it isn't a program/simulation or else they'll just programmed that thought away. Which leads to your mention of our easily manipulated perceptions. If there was some shadowy behind the scenes manipulation going on, why are they leaving you with such thoughts? Why haven't they easily manipulated away your perception of this universe as a simulation?

What an epic response!

The fact that he can entertain the thought that death reveals artificiality, means the simulaton is not influencing his perception, which undermines his claim that perception is easily manipulated.

KobolanderSegun:
The fact that we can create is proof that we are not programmed. Ai finds it extremely hard to be original ai is trained to copy. Ai at this point in time cannot create anything new.

Do we really create anything? I like to think we merely compile/decompile creation into different forms, place and whatever else. Given that no one so far had created an atom, which is what you must use to do what you think is creation. Atoms merely exist. Its like a river which existed before man...

Same way, AI doesn't create anything. It simply shapes and forms whatever is available to it.

Question is: Could Consciousness itself not even be something original to the exerciser of it even as atoms or matter used in "creation" isn't original to the inventor or so-called creator?

What is Unconscious cannot create anything because consciousness and awareness are 5 And 6. A man in a coma is Unconscious and he cannot do anything. This goes to show what is Unconscious cannot create Consciousness.

I believe here, you narrowed creation to mean actioned-based participation in life, or maybe not.

Dead bodies are buzzing with a lot of activities that passes as creation in the same vein as someone 'creating' the new product. Directly there are several things the body is creating while all activities happening as result of the existence of that 'unconscious' like the existence of a mortuary, the staff, the diggers, etc are creations of this body, this is if you define creation in your own very words of course...

The mountains, the stone, the sticks are all physical creators in action even when they only displace space or occupy it. Again you just have to define creation and fact-check the assertions above.

LordReed:
I don't really understand why a dead body would make you think life is fake given what we know about life. A dead body behaves exactly how it should under the circumstances. If it behaved differently, I'd have understood but it doesn't. Even if it was a program why would the programmers let you think that it was a sign of life being a program? That to me is a sign it isn't a program/simulation or else they'll just programmed that thought away. Which leads to your mention of our easily manipulated perceptions. If there was some shadowy behind the scenes manipulation going on, why are they leaving you with such thoughts? Why haven't they easily manipulated away your perception of this universe as a simulation?

+
My dear brother and friend.

You see, one thing I have noticed about you is that hard physical science is always required to convince you of anything. While understandable and even praise worthy in some instances, it is severely limiting because there is so much more to our experience of this reality than physical science can cover or account for. If we were limited to what physical science can account for, we would all be vastly poorer for it.

This factor has often stumped me in conversations with you because I struggle to put in words of physical science things that actually don't belong there. Things that belong in the meta physical, the spiritual and the experiential.

But think about death. Really really think about it. The challenge we have is that you see the body and the individual as one and the same. I know very well they are not the same. One is a vehicle or tool for the other. A covering for the other.

But think about it. The human beings you relate with on a daily basis are much more than flesh and blood. The faces you see are just that, masks. We have gone through this extensively on the Mind and Matter thread and arrived at no agreement so I will not bother to rehash it here.

I will only say that death presents us with the chance to see that this machine can be stopped. That it can be switched off. And that infers a measure of limitation to its function. The very fact that it can cease to experience a reality which is still going on while it has ceased tells us that it is only part of a wider programme and operation, a piece which can be taken out of that program and operation, unplugged, so to speak. And when unplugged we can see it in all its worthlessness - static and unalive on a true sense because it is unplugged from the ongoing operation. With reflection, this tells us that it was only a tool being used for a partial and particular experience of a larger program or operation and it can exhaust its time, its energy or even its usefulness. There is something inherently made up and artificial about that. An original thing would be one and the same with the operation, and incapable of being "unplugged" from it in such a manner.

In short, it would be incapable of death.

I know this will not resonate with you but it is very hard to put into the scientific words you prefer and insist on. Because it is not a matter of physical science as I said.

Moving on to the fact that it is possible to manipulate our perception.

This is an even bigger proof and it is closer to science. Dwell on it carefully.

1. What we perceive is even a limited and selected range of what is around us. We only perceive based on the capabilities fixed in our physical bodies, we see a very very very small spectrum of what is around us, we feel, smell and hear only a tiny portion as well. This is scientific fact as you know.

2. And yet the little that we perceive can easily be changed! One mushroom, one narcotic and you would be seeing and feeling completely different things! In fact your brain can be manipulated by any amount of methods including chemical methods such that you completely see or hear totally different things and even things that are supposedly non existent! This is extremely telling and demonstrates that the entire experience is changeable and this fact alone severely undermines the reality of everything. It shows that the whole thing could be and likely is a show, a sham and made up. The very fact that you can hallucinate proves this.

Let me not forget to add that I am still not asserting all the above as definite facts. This life is way too mysterious for me to do that. All I am doing is trying to let you see that many things may be possible and we cannot be limited enough to rule out much.

It is entirely possible that your life is a dream and you wake up at death on a bed somewhere else where you have been napping for just a short time and that nap was this life.

PS: Did you ever watch the movie Inception? A dream within a dream within a dream?

And have you ever had a dream and woken up to find that you were dreaming? Then woken up again to find that you were dreaming that you were dreaming and woke up?

DeepSight:
+
My dear brother and friend.

You see, one thing I have noticed about you is that hard physical science is always required to convince you of anything. While understandable and even praise worthy in some instances, it is severely limiting because there is so much more to our experience of this reality than physical science can cover or account for. If we were limited to what physical science can account for, we would all be vastly poorer for it.

This factor has often stumped me in conversations with you because I struggle to put in words of physical science things that actually don't belong there. Things that belong in the meta physical, the spiritual and the experiential.

But think about death. Really really think about it. The challenge we have is that you see the body and the individual as one and the same. I know very well they are not the same. One is a vehicle or tool for the other. A covering for the other.

But think about it. The human beings you relate with on a daily basis are much more than flesh and blood. The faces you see are just that, masks. We have gone through this extensively on the Mind and Matter thread and arrived at no agreement so I will not bother to rehash it here.

I will only say that death presents us with the chance to see that this machine can be stopped. That it can be switched off. And that infers a measure of limitation to its function. The very fact that it can cease to experience a reality which is still going on while it has ceased tells us that it is only part of a wider programme and operation, a piece which can be taken out of that program and operation, unplugged, so to speak. And when unplugged we can see it in all its worthlessness - static and unalive on a true sense because it is unplugged from the ongoing operation. With reflection, this tells us that it was only a tool being used for a partial and particular experience of a larger program or operation and it can exhaust its time, its energy or even its usefulness. There is something inherently made up and artificial about that. An original thing would be one and the same with the operation, and incapable of being "unplugged" from it in such a manner.

In short, it would be incapable of death.

I know this will not resonate with you but it is very hard to put into the scientific words you prefer and insist on. Because it is not a matter of physical science as I said.

Moving on to the fact that it is possible to manipulate our perception.

This is an even bigger proof and it is closer to science. Dwell on it carefully.

1. What we perceive is even a limited and selected range of what is around us. We only perceive based on the capabilities fixed in our physical bodies, we see a very very very small spectrum of what is around us, we feel, smell and hear only a tiny portion as well. This is scientific fact as you know.

2. And yet the little that we perceive can easily be changed! One mushroom, one narcotic and you would be seeing and feeling completely different things! In fact your brain can be manipulated by any amount of methods including chemical methods such that you completely see or hear totally different things and even things that are supposedly non existent! This is extremely telling and demonstrates that the entire experience is changeable and this fact alone severely undermines the reality of everything. It shows that the whole thing could be and likely is a show, a sham and made up. The very fact that you can hallucinate proves this.

Let me not forget to add that I am still not asserting all the above as definite facts. This life is way too mysterious for me to do that. All I am doing is trying to let you see that many things may be possible and we cannot be limited enough to rule out much.

It is entirely possible that your life is a dream and you wake up at death on a bed somewhere else where you have been napping for just a short time and that nap was this life.

PS: Did you ever watch the movie Inception? A dream within a dream within a dream?

And have you ever had a dream and woken up to find that you were dreaming? Then woken up again to find that you were dreaming that you were dreaming and woke up?

I agree it is a challenge to keep discussions to within the bounds of scientific observations but for me methodological naturalism is the only tool I see that is readily accessible to everyone. If the only way you know something is because you experience it in your mind and cannot demonstrate it to anyone else, then it to me is useless.

Bro what informs your conclusion that a true base line real life would be incapable of death?

Also you didn't speak to why the so called beings behind this whole operation are leaving you to question reality. If it is so easy to alter the mind why is yours still on this path of inquiry?

All created worlds are simulations.

DeepSight:
+
My dear brother and friend.

You see, one thing I have noticed about you is that hard physical science is always required to convince you of anything. While understandable and even praise worthy in some instances, it is severely limiting because there is so much more to our experience of this reality than physical science can cover or account for. If we were limited to what physical science can account for, we would all be vastly poorer for it.

This factor has often stumped me in conversations with you because I struggle to put in words of physical science things that actually don't belong there. Things that belong in the meta physical, the spiritual and the experiential.

But think about death. Really really think about it. The challenge we have is that you see the body and the individual as one and the same. I know very well they are not the same. One is a vehicle or tool for the other. A covering for the other.

But think about it. The human beings you relate with on a daily basis are much more than flesh and blood. The faces you see are just that, masks. We have gone through this extensively on the Mind and Matter thread and arrived at no agreement so I will not bother to rehash it here.

I will only say that death presents us with the chance to see that this machine can be stopped. That it can be switched off. And that infers a measure of limitation to its function. The very fact that it can cease to experience a reality which is still going on while it has ceased tells us that it is only part of a wider programme and operation, a piece which can be taken out of that program and operation, unplugged, so to speak. And when unplugged we can see it in all its worthlessness - static and unalive on a true sense because it is unplugged from the ongoing operation. With reflection, this tells us that it was only a tool being used for a partial and particular experience of a larger program or operation and it can exhaust its time, its energy or even its usefulness. There is something inherently made up and artificial about that. An original thing would be one and the same with the operation, and incapable of being "unplugged" from it in such a manner.

In short, it would be incapable of death.

I know this will not resonate with you but it is very hard to put into the scientific words you prefer and insist on. Because it is not a matter of physical science as I said.

Moving on to the fact that it is possible to manipulate our perception.

This is an even bigger proof and it is closer to science. Dwell on it carefully.

1. What we perceive is even a limited and selected range of what is around us. We only perceive based on the capabilities fixed in our physical bodies, we see a very very very small spectrum of what is around us, we feel, smell and hear only a tiny portion as well. This is scientific fact as you know.

2. And yet the little that we perceive can easily be changed! One mushroom, one narcotic and you would be seeing and feeling completely different things! In fact your brain can be manipulated by any amount of methods including chemical methods such that you completely see or hear totally different things and even things that are supposedly non existent! This is extremely telling and demonstrates that the entire experience is changeable and this fact alone severely undermines the reality of everything. It shows that the whole thing could be and likely is a show, a sham and made up. The very fact that you can hallucinate proves this.

Let me not forget to add that I am still not asserting all the above as definite facts. This life is way too mysterious for me to do that. All I am doing is trying to let you see that many things may be possible and we cannot be limited enough to rule out much.

It is entirely possible that your life is a dream and you wake up at death on a bed somewhere else where you have been napping for just a short time and that nap was this life.

PS: Did you ever watch the movie Inception? A dream within a dream within a dream?

And have you ever had a dream and woken up to find that you were dreaming? Then woken up again to find that you were dreaming that you were dreaming and woke up?

I think you misunderstand Lordreed. From my past interactions with him, I know he is open -minded enough to listen to any alternative explanation outside the sciences, as long as it makes sense and can be supported by some evidence, which doesn't have to be scientific evidence.

At the beginning of this conversation, he repeatedly asked you and the other person, "How do you know" . The question signified that he was willing to consider any other explanation you could provide . He didn't demand scientific evidence , he only asked a simple question which you replied to with the culled extract you provided ,which didn't prove anything.


I have discussed the soul, reincarnation and OBE on this forum., and each time, I have issued a disclaimer that they find no scientific support in the sciences or among mainstream scientists, but does not mean they are not true.

I sense you are hesitant to confidently discuss what you know for fear of being labelled gullible for believing in woo -woo stuff by those who easily dismiss anything not supported by mainstream scientists. This shouldn't be.

If you have a method share it. If you have a direct experience , describe it , and let the evidence speak for itself. Anyone who would dismiss them without examination was never interested in any sincere conversation with you.


Not t every truth in the world is scientifically explained. Most people don't know this. The placebo effect, for instance, is used in drug testting and is true , yet it is not scientifically proven. It can be rationally explained to some extent,but not as detailed as scientifically proven truth. Scientists don't know what causes the placebo effect.

Not being able to put it into words is your own difficulty, not proof it cannot be done. Even Juju, as mysterious as it is , can be rationally explained, how much more the soul, which so many people have directly experienced

I wish you would reply me. You hardly reply to me, and don't know why. If you did I would prove that those things you claim cannot be put into words are, in fact, easily explained

SIGMATRON:
All created worlds are simulations.

What are they simulating? And how do you know?

triplechoice:
I think you misunderstand Lordreed. From my past interactions with him, I know he is open -minded enough to listen to any alternative explanation outside the sciences, as long as it makes sense and can be supported by some evidence, which doesn't have to be scientific evidence.

At the beginning of this conversation, he repeatedly asked you and the other person, "How do you know" . The question signified that he was willing to consider any other explanation you could provide . He didn't demand scientific evidence , he only asked a simple question which you replied to with the culled extract you provided ,which didn't prove anything.


I have discussed the soul, reincarnation and OBE on this forum., and each time, I have issued a disclaimer that they find no scientific support in the sciences or among mainstream scientists, but does not mean they are not true.

I sense you are hesitant to confidently discuss what you know for fear of being labelled gullible for believing in woo -woo stuff by those who easily dismiss anything not supported by mainstream scientists. This shouldn't be.

If you have a method share it. If you have a direct experience , describe it , and let the evidence speak for itself. Anyone who would dismiss them without examination was never interested in any sincere conversation with you.


Not t every truth in the world is scientifically explained. Most people don't know this. The placebo effect, for instance, is used in drug testting and is true , yet it is not scientifically proven. It can be rationally explained to some extent,but not as detailed as scientifically proven truth. Scientists don't know what causes the placebo effect.

Not being able to put it into words is your own difficulty, not proof it cannot be done. Even Juju, as mysterious as it is , can be rationally explained, how much more the soul, which so many people have directly experienced

I wish you would reply me. You hardly reply to me, and don't know why. If you did I would prove that those things you claim cannot be put into words are, in fact, easily explained

+
My dear triplechoice. Know that I do not ignore your posts. This particular subject is a difficult one and thats why I have tarried in terms of moving it forward even with Reed. I still hope to do so.

Also much of what you wrote in this thread concerned chieveboy and not me per se.

Let me say however that you are right in your sensing that I am hesitant to share some things. I know that the astral / ethereal worlds are real because I frequent them consciously. I know the process it took me to get to the stage where I can consciously and knowingly frequent those worlds which are just astride this physical world, in a manner of speaking, just beside it. I know how real those worlds are and I know that we all dwell in those worlds simultaneously with this world. Sadly this is not a thing one can ever prove to anyone until the person gets to experience it himself or herself at his or her own time if it is meant for him or her.

triplechoice:
What are they simulating?

Uncreated divinity?

DeepSight:
Uncreated divinity?

You replied with "uncreated divinity", followed by a question mark. That does not answer the questions I asked .

If your answer is "uncreated divinity" (which is not the same as the "base reality" you started with). you still haven't explained what that is; how it relates to simulation, or why it should be called a simulation.

"Simulation", "real", and "unreal" are human labels we apply to our perceptions. Ultimate reality, divine consciousness, would not perceive things the way we do. So even if we accept that something uncreated exists, ( It exist) it does not automatically mean this world is a simulation of it. It only means we have a certain perception, and perception, as they say, is not reality..

triplechoice:
You replied with "uncreated divinity", followed by a question mark. That does not answer the questions I asked

+
With a question mark to indicate that I am not certain either.

If your answer is "uncreated divinity" (which is not the same as the "base reality" you started with). you still haven't explained what that is; how it relates to simulation, or why it should be called a simulation.

+
Why would it be different from base reality?

"Simulation", "real", and "unreal" are human labels we apply to our perceptions. Ultimate reality, divine consciousness, would not perceive things the way we do. So even if we accept that something uncreated exists, ( It exist) it does not automatically mean this world is a simulation of it. It only means we have a certain perception, and perception, as they say, is not reality..

+
Indeed perception is only cognitive reality.

DeepSight:
+
My dear triplechoice. Know that I do not ignore your posts. This particular subject is a difficult one and thats why I have tarried in terms of moving it forward even with Reed. I still hope to do so.

Also much of what you wrote in this thread concerned chieveboy and not me per se.

Let me say however that you are right in your sensing that I am hesitant to share some things. I know that the astral / ethereal worlds are real because I frequent them consciously. I know the process it took me to get to the stage where I can consciously and knowingly frequent those worlds which are just astride this physical world, in a manner of speaking, just beside it. I know how real those worlds are and I know that we all dwell in those worlds simultaneously with this world. Sadly this is not a thing one can ever prove to anyone until the person gets to experience it himself or herself at his or her own time if it is meant for him or her.

I appreciate your honesty about hesitating to share. But I want address a few things

If what you claim is true, that you frequent the astral worlds consciously , then you are in a position to clarify what is actually there, not imagine, speculate or repeat what others have claimed, but speak from your own inner experience .

If you have inne experiences, then speak from them like Sarassin did while he was here. He shared his experiences, he shared methods, and no one could fault him because he spoke from what he lived

And please, what method do you use to validate your inner journeys?. The mind can sometimes project experiences that are real. People have "visited heaven and Hell" during NDE, and what they report often matches what their culture or religion taught them to expect. That does not mean those places exist as they saw them. Their minds constructed experience from stored beliefs.

In the inner worlds realities can be created instantaneously by thought. So how do you know what you are experiencing is "real" and not a projection of your own expectations , or worse, someone else 's?

Yes, this can happen. . But this does not mean there are no genuine OBE or NDE .. There are. There are methods to validate your inner experience to be sure.

DeepSight:
+
My dear brother and friend.

You see, one thing I have noticed about you is that hard physical science is always required to convince you of anything. While understandable and even praise worthy in some instances, it is severely limiting because there is so much more to our experience of this reality than physical science can cover or account for. If we were limited to what physical science can account for, we would all be vastly poorer for it.

This factor has often stumped me in conversations with you because I struggle to put in words of physical science things that actually don't belong there. Things that belong in the meta physical, the spiritual and the experiential.

But think about death. Really really think about it. The challenge we have is that you see the body and the individual as one and the same. I know very well they are not the same. One is a vehicle or tool for the other. A covering for the other.

But think about it. The human beings you relate with on a daily basis are much more than flesh and blood. The faces you see are just that, masks. We have gone through this extensively on the Mind and Matter thread and arrived at no agreement so I will not bother to rehash it here.

I will only say that death presents us with the chance to see that this machine can be stopped. That it can be switched off. And that infers a measure of limitation to its function. The very fact that it can cease to experience a reality which is still going on while it has ceased tells us that it is only part of a wider programme and operation, a piece which can be taken out of that program and operation, unplugged, so to speak. And when unplugged we can see it in all its worthlessness - static and unalive on a true sense because it is unplugged from the ongoing operation. With reflection, this tells us that it was only a tool being used for a partial and particular experience of a larger program or operation and it can exhaust its time, its energy or even its usefulness. There is something inherently made up and artificial about that. An original thing would be one and the same with the operation, and incapable of being "unplugged" from it in such a manner.

In short, it would be incapable of death.

I know this will not resonate with you but it is very hard to put into the scientific words you prefer and insist on. Because it is not a matter of physical science as I said.

Moving on to the fact that it is possible to manipulate our perception.

This is an even bigger proof and it is closer to science. Dwell on it carefully.

1. What we perceive is even a limited and selected range of what is around us. We only perceive based on the capabilities fixed in our physical bodies, we see a very very very small spectrum of what is around us, we feel, smell and hear only a tiny portion as well. This is scientific fact as you know.

2. And yet the little that we perceive can easily be changed! One mushroom, one narcotic and you would be seeing and feeling completely different things! In fact your brain can be manipulated by any amount of methods including chemical methods such that you completely see or hear totally different things and even things that are supposedly non existent! This is extremely telling and demonstrates that the entire experience is changeable and this fact alone severely undermines the reality of everything. It shows that the whole thing could be and likely is a show, a sham and made up. The very fact that you can hallucinate proves this.

Let me not forget to add that I am still not asserting all the above as definite facts. This life is way too mysterious for me to do that. All I am doing is trying to let you see that many things may be possible and we cannot be limited enough to rule out much.

It is entirely possible that your life is a dream and you wake up at death on a bed somewhere else where you have been napping for just a short time and that nap was this life.

PS: Did you ever watch the movie Inception? A dream within a dream within a dream?

And have you ever had a dream and woken up to find that you were dreaming? Then woken up again to find that you were dreaming that you were dreaming and woke up?

This is such a beautifully worded post. Einstein would have been very proud. On the part of Hallucinating it may prove the brain is able to perceive on different levels based on influence from different stimulus. To a large degree we are all cut from the same clothe mentally. Imagine a world were we all experienced it differently we would find existence hard because communication would be very if we could not arrive at similar conclusions.

I totally agree death " might " be a door way to another. But we have to die first to know. We definitely experience life only through a limited lens the invention of the microscope would teach us because we cannot see with our eyes does not mean it does not exist.
The problem of waking up at death to find out we were dreaming is ones body is in the ground in that dream world and others in that dream world can still see that body in skeletal form. It appears the religious have a more simpler view on this that two realities exist, this one and the one after this. When we die we will know for sure..... But if we cease to exist how will we know ,? Well we will know at the point of death because our instincts will inform us of what is about to happen or what is next if here is anything next. Death will not be a mystery to the body it will simply be another aspect of life like urination.

DeepSight:
+
With a question mark to indicate that I am not certain either.

Ok then since you are not certain

Why would it be different from base reality?

Because "base reality" as Bostrom used it, refers to a physical reality, another universe, that runs the simulation we might be in.

It is not described as a divine uncreated, or having any form of consciousness. . It is described as another level of existence with its own kind of physics.

"uncreated divinity" implies something beyond physics, consciousness, God or source, and not a physical world that could host a simulation. So they are not the same

Indeed perception is only cognitive reality.

If perception is only cognitive reality, then the fact you perceive something does not make it true. It only means you are having an experience, and that is why methods of verification matter, whether in science or in inner exploration, spirituality, to be sure of what's "there"

triplechoice:
What are they simulating? And how do you know?

Basically simulated for individuated fractal experiences. Just out of curiosity.

How I know ? Basically from subjective personal experiences.

triplechoice:
Ok then since you are not certain




Because "base reality" as Bostrom used it, refers to a physical reality, another universe, that runs the simulation we might be in.

It is not described as a divine uncreated, or having any form of consciousness. . It is described as another level of existence with its own kind of physics.

"uncreated divinity" implies something beyond physics, consciousness, God or source, and not a physical world that could host a simulation. So they are not the same




If perception is only cognitive reality, then the fact you perceive something does not make it true. It only means you are having an experience, and that is why methods of verification matter, whether in science or in inner exploration, spirituality, to be sure of what's "there"

We appreciate the work of Nick Bostrom, he philosophizes clearly on extrapolated principles of reality, but it is basically not a lived experiences. Base Reality is not is not exactly what you assume. That phase of existence just is. Until you are, you wont understand. It is beyond psychic.

What the hell is even this conversation

Hohenheim:
What the hell is even this conversation

This conversation becomes essential at the point of death, when you experience what you are not prepared for and get recycled into a realm you are not supposed to be, by virtue of your ignorance of mechanics of incarnation and conscious realism.

SIGMATRON:
We appreciate the work of Nick Bostrom, he philosophizes clearly on extrapolated principles of reality, but it is basically not a lived experiences. Base Reality is not is not exactly what you assume. That phase of existence just is. Until you are, you wont understand. It is beyond psychic.

You have misrepresented what I said. I never claimed "base reality" is a lived experience. I simply noted what Brostrom actually wrote: a physical reality with its own physics, a hypothetical, not a state you must "be" to understand..

So, your "until you are", you won't understand " is evasion , not an argument. It deflects from the point I raised, and offers nothing but mystification.

If you have a clear position, please state it . Otherwise , this is just noise , not different from ",until you have the holy spirit you won't understand it "

triplechoice:
You have misrepresented what I said. I never claimed "base reality" is a lived experience. I simply noted what Brostrom actually wrote: a physical reality with its own physics, a hypothetical, not a state you must "be" to understand..

So, your "until you are", you won't understand " is evasion , not an argument. It deflects from the point I raised, and offers nothing but mystification.

If you have a clear position, please state it . Otherwise , this is just noise , not different from ",until you have the holy spirit you won't understand it "

So what is your question again?

I know your research is based on theories by Nick Bostrom and I know the hypothesis, yes, but what I am saying is that as Nick stated, it is an hypothesis that has a degree of accuracy, but if your question is actually to know if our reality here on Earth is a base reality and not a simulation? If that is your question, my answer is that all created Realities and any Realm are all simulations including this one.

And if you really want to know the nature of what you call Base Reality, which is basically the initial phase of consciousness dynamics into spatial dimension from the Monad, I can explain it based on my experience of it, but if you are totally invested in waiting for Nick Bostrom to tell you about base reality, you will get an hypothesis and not the true nature of it, cos until Nick moves from philosophy to parapsychism, he will not know.

SIGMATRON:
Basically simulated for individuated fractal experiences. Just out of curiosity..

"Individuated fractal experiences" is vague talk.

Who or what is doing the simulating ? What is the original being simulated? And how do you know it is being done out of curiosity?
.

How I know ? Basically from subjective personal experiences.

If your knowledge concerning this is purely personal , then you are not making a claim, but stating a belief .

Your subjective experience are valid for you. but it does not establish an objective truth others are expected to accept.

triplechoice:
"Individuated fractal experiences" is vague talk.

Who or what is doing the simulating ? What is the original being simulated? And how do you know it is being done out of curiosity?
.

If your knowledge concerning this is purely personal , then you are not making a claim, but stating a belief .

Your subjective experience are valid for you. but it does not establish an objective truth others are expected to accept.

Vagueness is relative to a level of understanding. Let's step it down.

What is doing the simulation is Cosmic Super Intelligence (disembodied) for want of words. And that is magnitude of degrees lower than a Monad. And there are 12 Monads.

With regards to subjective experience, this is not speculative. I understand that 99.9% of the people will never experience it. And I don't really care.

SIGMATRON:
Vagueness is relative to a level of understanding. Let's step it down.

What is doing the simulation is Cosmic Super Intelligence (disembodied) for want of words. And that is magnitude of degrees lower than a Monad. And there are 12 Monads.

With regards to subjective experience, this is not speculative. I understand that 99.9% of the people will never experience it. And I don't really care.

You are yet to answer a single question and now adding more layers of unexplained jargon.

If your knowledge is real, you should be able to explain it in terms that others can easily grasp. Otherwise, vagueness is relative " is just a way to avoid giving a direct answer, and that is, if you really have any to give in the first place .

If you don't really care, then please stop replying. Thank you.