₦airaland Forum

SIGMATRON:
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.

You have misunderstood both my position and the conversation and that is because you didn't read from the beginning of the thread

I did not bring Brostrom into this thread. Deepsight did. I was clarifying what Brostrom meant, not relying on him as my source.

I don't subscribe to simulation of reality. Simulation contradicts the truth about life: free will, without which we would not evolve as humans.

The only question I asked you was, What are they simulating? And how do you know?

You answer was word salad and vague references. dressed as depth

SIGMATRON:
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.

Dude just saying anything, how exactly do you who is alive know about different realms and dimensions after death.
You'd be better off writing fantasy stories and making a living off that.

triplechoice:
"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."

"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 care less if you do not respond to this.

But I wish to let you know that either you are a smooth crook, or you merely chose to use the "its not scientifically proven" hook to put down genuine information which you didn't like based on past experience with either person or the group or you use that just to steer a discussion.

You remember your dealings on my thread about the ECK Masters and also the other on the use of sound technology for healing ?

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.

One needs to, given the proclivity of certain responders to condemn what they do not know using very base, limited and primitive standards which they like to call science.

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.

Surprise, surprise...eyes are now open and ears wide, all ready to hear things like astral projection and seeing beings who have no profile pictures and all things not scientifically proven.

People may think I am being rash when I appear to turn on you...

Hohenheim:
Dude just saying anything, how exactly do you who is alive know about different realms and dimensions after death.
You'd be better off writing fantasy stories and making a living off that.

I know because I am not you. It is a fact that spirit is eternal. Prebirth, during incarnation and post-death. So to know what happens during and after death, you have to just experience the state of death temporarily, and key process is to master the process and repeat it experimentally and gather the data to form a framework, mapping the realms of existence after death.

Is it possible? Yes. Have I gone through it. Yes.

As for fantasy, I certainly love fantasies but this is not.

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.

Help me ask him if it is the same mind we use up above in the inner worlds which is capable of "projecting experiences" that we use down here on earth? Emphasis on "above and "below".

I had posited earlier that all perception is subjective even in the sense that no one uses the instruments of perception of the other like the eyes, nose, skin, mind, etc to perceive or observe things. I also said given this, we merely 'agree' to have observed the same thing even though this might not be the actual case. Also:

-That two or more people could see the same thing while not sharing same eyes could potentially counter the idea that perception is subjective. But then, we still do not use one another's sensoria for this leaving this claim as is.

-This then would give the need to look in the direction that perhaps, there is in existence an interface or mechanism that is able to combine one or more subjective experiences and "project" it to this same set of 'Observing Subjectives' even as he asserted in people visiting same heaven and hell based on their shared agreements.

-If exists a collective 'subjective Projection Interface', then that interface is a 'simulative projector' (watch for tautology) else, no two people could have shared experiences which occurs in real time when their instruments of perception and experiencing is not shared in the sense of sharing a single thing.

This then would be a marvel of what we call reality, if indeed we live in a computer simulation.



NB: The above would mean nothing is 'real', but then nothing would be capable of being unreal.

Sights, sounds in OBE, Astral projection, imagination, waking life, hallucinations, beliefs, etc are all real and unreal relatively.

...The interface is live and alive

triplechoice:
You have misunderstood both my position and the conversation and that is because you didn't read from the beginning of the thread

I did not bring Brostrom into this thread. Deepsight did. I was clarifying what Brostrom meant, not relying on him as my source.

I don't subscribe to simulation of reality. Simulation contradicts the truth about life: free will, without which we would not evolve as humans.

The only question I asked you was, What are they simulating? And how do you know?

You answer was word salad and vague references. dressed as depth

+
Freewill is likely an illusion.

DeepSight:
+
Freewill is likely an illusion.

No. It is not.

The realisation that one has free will hasten ones spiritual growth.

SIGMATRON:
I know because I am not you. It is a fact that spirit is eternal. Prebirth, during incarnation and post-death. So to know what happens during and after death, you have to just experience the state of death temporarily, and key process is to master the process and repeat it experimentally and gather the data to form a framework, mapping the realms of existence after death.

Is it possible? Yes. Have I gone through it. Yes.

As for fantasy, I certainly love fantasies but this is not.

Stay off that ketamine

Hohenheim:
Stay off that ketamine

+
While I cannot account for another person's experiences in such matters (no one can), I will confidently say that it is wrong to presume that people who speak about the astral, the ethereal, the spiritual worlds, or NDEs or OBEs must be on drugs.

Because such places and such things are real.

triplechoice:
No. It is not.

The realisation that one has free will hasten ones spiritual growth.

+
Really? How deeply have you reflected on this question.

Let me try you.

For starters. Do you agree that your genes play a role in your life choices and the way you think?

DeepSight:
+
Really? How deeply have you reflected on this question.

I have gone past the stage of reflecting on it. I am living it everyday of my life.

Let me try you.

For starters. Do you agree that your genes play a role in your life choices and the way you think?

Yes of course, they both play a role. But a role is not a cage. Our genes shape the tendencies we have, but they do not dictate choices. A person may have a genetic predisposition toward aggression, yet choose not to act on it. Not acting on it is exercising free will.

The controversy that has arisen over the concept of free will, whether we have it or not, is caused by differences in understanding . We do not understand it the same way

Free will does not mean the freedom to float above every physical constraint or "to do and undo" without hindrance, as most people assume. It means the freedom to make choices within the framework of both the physical body we occupy and the world we collectively share with others.

The way framed your question suggest to me that you equate free will with the absence of any influence. But it does not work that way . Even researchers who emphasise unconscious influence acknowledge that conscious reasoning and self-reflection can override initial impulses

When an individual knows that eating a certain meal will result in drowsiness before an important meeting, they have the choice not to eat it. The person will not say to himself, " My body will react anyway, so I have no choice"

The same thing happens when a thought to harm another person crosses one's mind. One also has the choice to act on it or not. The person will not say to himself " I cannot control my action because of how I think"

Yes , the impulse may arise, but the decision to follow it is ours . Free will is not the absence of influence.

triplechoice:
I have gone past the stage of reflecting on it. I am living it everyday of my life.

Yes of course, they both play a role. But a role is not a cage. Our genes shape the tendencies we have, but they do not dictate choices. A person may have a genetic predisposition toward aggression, yet choose not to act on it. Not acting on it is exercising free will.

The controversy that has arisen over the concept of free will, whether we have it or not, is caused by differences in understanding . We do not understand it the same way

Free will does not mean the freedom to float above every physical constraint or "to do and undo" without hindrance, as most people assume. It means the freedom to make choices within the framework of both the physical body we occupy and the world we collectively share with others.

The way framed your question suggest to me that you equate free will with the absence of any influence. But it does not work that way . Even researchers who emphasise unconscious influence acknowledge that conscious reasoning and self-reflection can override initial impulses

When an individual knows that eating a certain meal will result in drowsiness before an important meeting, they have the choice not to eat it. The person will not say to himself, " My body will react anyway, so I have no choice"

The same thing happens when a thought to harm another person crosses one's mind. One also has the choice to act on it or not.

Yes , the impulse may arise, but the decision to follow it is ours . Free will is not the absence of influence.

+
Would you say that a person born with down syndrome has the same range of free choices that a genius has?

DeepSight:
+
Would you say that a person born with down syndrome has the same range of free choices that a genius has?

The question you asked assumes that a smaller range of choices translate to less free will. But free will is not measured or determined by the breath of options, but by the capacity to choose within the options that exist, and the ability to find meaning within those choices

From a spiritual point of view, free will operates at a level deeper than the physical body . The body, whether that of genius or a person with Down syndrome, is seen as carefully chosen vehicle for a specific journey of growth

This perspective , an unpopular one, suggests that the soul, prior to birth, chooses its physical form with its genetic makeup, and even its specific life challenges

So from this , a condition like Down syndrome is not a punishment or an accident. It is a specific set of constraints chosen by a courageous soul to learn a particular lesson, perhaps about patience, unconditional love, or the nature of identity beyond intellect

If we reject the spiritual angle, and choose to consider it from a practical day to day perspective we still find that free will is not absent in a person with Down syndrome. It is there but expressed differently A person with Down syndrome may not have the same intellectual choices as a genius, but they have a profound choice in other areas like how to respond to affection, how to express joy, what to learn with their abilities, and what attitude to take towards their circumstances, choices that even a genius may struggle to make.

The real limitation of free will is not Down syndrome or any othe similar r health challenge, , it is the ego's identification with the body alone. Once we come to the realisation we are not the body, the choice of that body is seen as the greatest freedom of all.

triplechoice:
The question you asked assumes that a smaller range of choices translate to less free will. But free will is not measured or determined by the breath of options, but by the capacity to choose within the options that exist, and the ability to find meaning within those choices

From a spiritual point of view, free will operates at a level deeper than the physical body . The body, whether that of genius or a person with Down syndrome, is seen as carefully chosen vehicle for a specific journey of growth

This perspective , an unpopular one, suggests that the soul, prior to birth, chooses its physical form with its genetic makeup, and even its specific life challenges

So from this , a condition like Down syndrome is not a punishment or an accident. It is a specific set of constraints chosen by a courageous soul to learn a particular lesson, perhaps about patience, unconditional love, or the nature of identity beyond intellect

If we reject the spiritual angle, and choose to consider it from a practical day to day perspective we still find that free will is not absent in a person with Down syndrome. It is there but expressed differently A person with Down syndrome may not have the same intellectual choices as a genius, but they have a profound choice in other areas like how to respond to affection, how to express joy, what to learn with their abilities, and what attitude to take towards their circumstances, choices that even a genius may struggle to make.

The real limitation of free will is not Down syndrome or any othe similar r health challenge, , it is the ego's identification with the body alone. Once we come to the realisation we are not the body, the choice of that body is seen as the greatest freedom of all.

+
Well the real reason that freewill is very suspect is that every single thing from before the universe existed operates on some cause and effect and once this is true then there has been a line of causality from the beginning of the universe right down to the formation of the Earth, the evolution of creatures, the coming of humans and your parents and right down to the sort of person you would be, the brain you would have, the genetics you would have, where you would be born and all of these govern the choices you would make.

DeepSight:
+
Well the real reason that freewill is very suspect is that every single thing from before the universe existed operates on some cause and effect and once this is true then there has been a line of causality from the beginning of the universe right down to the formation of the Earth, the evolution of creatures, the coming of humans and your parents and right down to the sort of person you would be, the brain you would have, the genetics you would have, where you would be born and all of these govern the choices you would make.

Soul is cause, not effect

Soul is one with that from which it is made. Soul and spirit, personified as God in religion, described as ", pure energy" in the sciences, are one and the same.

So collectively, we are the cause of everything we set into motion from the beginning. There is no cause outside spirit, and the same applies to soul, which we are

triplechoice:
Soul is cause, not effect

Soul is one with that from which it is made. Soul and spirit, personified as God in religion, described as ", pure energy" in the sciences, are one and the same.

So collectively, we are the cause of everything we set into motion from the beginning. There is no cause outside spirit, and the same applies to soul, which we are

+
This is a non-dualist view, akin to pantheism, panentheism and monism. It also rhymes with the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta.

I find it hugely escapist on the matter of freewill though, because it more or less says that we are responsible for everything, probably even the creation of the universe.

DeepSight:
+
This is a non-dualist view, akin to pantheism, panentheism and monism. It also rhymes with the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta.

I find it hugely escapist on the matter of freewill though, because it more or less says that we are responsible for everything, probably even the creation of the universe.

Then what is the soul? I know you subscribe to the concept, but I have not read your definition of it anywhere.

The concept of the soul is often misconstrued, especially in traditions that separate it from its source. Anyone holding such a view would likely reject what I have said

So what is the soul?

What is it made of?

And how did you come to the realisation that you are soul different from the body?

tctrills:
So are you saying that the sacrifice of Christ was unjust to Him or unjust to mankind?

I would say, yes, the crucifixion of Christ was very unjust to him and humankind.

Humans would have benefitted more if they'd not murdered Christ and allowed him to teach some more. Unfortunately, they crucified him and then wrote a story to convince you he died for your sins, the same sins most are convinced they'd still be judged for when they die, which makes his murder a complete waste.

budaatum:
I would say, yes, the crucifixion of Christ was very unjust to him and humankind.

Humans would have benefitted more if they'd not murdered Christ and allowed him to teach some more. Unfortunately, they crucified him and then wrote a story to convince you he died for your sins, the same sins most are convinced they'd still be judged for when they die, which makes his murder a complete waste.

Now you are all over the place. You are saying you don't believe the writings of the bible but somehow, you believe Jesus Christ was a great teacher who's teachings benefitted mankind.
It sounds like you are confused to me.
We know that Jesus Christ was a great teacher who's teachings benefitted mankind.from reading the bible. So it's either the stories written are true or not and no matter which, what you wrote doesn't make sense because you are assuming the bible to be true and false at the same time.

tctrills:
Now you are all over the place. You are saying you don't believe the writings of the bible but somehow, you believe Jesus Christ was a great teacher who's teachings benefitted mankind.
It sounds like you are confused to me.
We know that Jesus Christ was a great teacher who's teachings benefitted mankind.from reading the bible. So it's either the stories written are true or not and no matter which, what you wrote doesn't make sense because you are assuming the bible to be true and false at the same time.

You seem to reason that the Bible was one book which was made to be an exclusive or original source of historic data about Jesus and the others.

You are yet to grasp that it is a second or third-class information book which came about as a convenient effort by Constantine to grasp political power, where people you do not know where asked to find these letters and combine with the holy book of the religion of Judaism to form a new book.

Many Christians think God wrote it or sent some angels down to write, dictate it or something in that line of inference especially the New testament.

Many do not know that in India and other places are more factual and detailed account of Jesus's life that is more richer than the ones who compiled the books of the Bible could lay their hands on. Did you get that? it means there are more books or original content that could have been there but for unavailability or downright censorship, editing and even translation, several where hidden, didn't make it or gets twisted most times due to the technicalities of translation, and famously to hide or twist the original content to suit a purpose.

If anything, Paul, Peter, Mathew et al, never knew their innocent and people-specific private communications will one day be gathered or compiled into a Bible for a future religion to be called "Christianity". None of their letters was made as personal contribution to a certain "bible", hence were not to be applied generally for all humanity even though it carries patches of sensible didactic, philosophical, historic and religious relevance which users may use as excerpts or quotes.

No declaration can ever make an Igbo man a Jew, not even a Christian because it opposes Jewish faith is not compatible with Christianity in matters of conditions for "salvation".

So you may want to grasp this dynamics first before making the statements above. You will also like to study how vast religious empire of belief systems can be made around half knowledge and or full ignorance as in claims like "... it is the word of God".

That thing called Bible is as good as any old letter outside of the bible by people who worked for the cause of what today is Christianity which the church calls "saints", or even the ones sent within Nigeria from the north to a distant School principal in the east. If it was during the time of compilations, that letter could have made the cut.

I

chieveboy:
You seem to reason that the Bible was one book which was made to be an exclusive or original source of historic data about Jesus and the others.

You are yet to grasp that it is a second or third-class information book which came about as a convenient effort by Constantine to grasp political power, where people you do not know where asked to find these letters and combine with the holy book of the religion of Judaism to form a new book.

Many Christians think God wrote it or sent some angels down to write, dictate it or something in that line of inference especially the New testament.

Many do not know that in India and other places are more factual and detailed account of Jesus's life that is more richer than the ones who compiled the books of the Bible could lay their hands on. Did you get that? it means there are more books or original content that could have been there but for unavailability or downright censorship, editing and even translation, several where hidden, didn't make it or gets twisted most times due to the technicalities of translation, and famously to hide or twist the original content to suit a purpose.

If anything, Paul, Peter, Mathew et al, never knew their innocent and people-specific private communications will one day be gathered or compiled into a Bible for a future religion to be called "Christianity". None of their letters was made as personal contribution to a certain "bible", hence were not to be applied generally for all humanity even though it carries patches of sensible didactic, philosophical, historic and religious relevance which users may use as excerpts or quotes.

No declaration can ever make an Igbo man a Jew, not even a Christian because it opposes Jewish faith is not compatible with Christianity in matters of conditions for "salvation".

So you may want to grasp this dynamics first before making the statements above. You will also like to study how vast religious empire of belief systems can be made around half knowledge and or full ignorance as in claims like "... it is the word of God".

That thing called Bible is as good as any old letter outside of the bible by people who worked for the cause of what today is Christianity which the church calls "saints", or even the ones sent within Nigeria from the north to a distant School principal in the east. If it was during the time of compilations, that letter could have made the cut.

Everyone with their opinions. But I still don't get how your write is an answer or reply to what I wrote. It seems you completely went into another topic please reverse to the old discussion.

tctrills:
I
Everyone with their opinions. But I still don't get how your write is an answer or reply to what I wrote. It seems you completely went into another topic please reverse to the old discussion.

Its probably just me understanding what the author l responded to said...

Bro I dunno if you've seen this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/07/no-one-has-done-this-in-the-wild-study-observes-ai-replicate-itself

LordReed:
Bro I dunno if you've seen this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/07/no-one-has-done-this-in-the-wild-study-observes-ai-replicate-itself

Am I right that your thinking is if this can suggest machine or computer or software consciousness?

DeepSight:
Am I right that your thinking is if this can suggest machine or computer or software consciousness?

No, self replication.

LordReed:
No, self replication.

As a sign of being a living thing?

DeepSight:
As a sign of being a living thing?

It's a sign it could become artificial life.

LordReed:
It's a sign it could become artificial life.

What exactly would that mean. I mean, can life be artificial? What would artificial life be like? A copy of living things? Fake life? Exactly what?

DeepSight:
What exactly would that mean. I mean, can life be artificial? What would artificial life be like? A copy of living things? Fake life? Exactly what?

A life whose origins are not natural i.e. created life.

LordReed:
A life whose origins are not natural i.e. created life.

I still struggle. In what sense will it be living. Is it merely by self replication?

If that is the case would you say that a self replicating nanobot must be a living thing.

DeepSight:
I still struggle. In what sense will it be living. Is it merely by self replication?

If that is the case would you say that a self replicating nanobot must be a living thing.

I thought we had a discussion where I numerated some of what we would class as the characteristics of artificial life. Lemme see if I can find it.

LordReed:
I thought we had a discussion where I numerated some of what we would class as the characteristics of artificial life. Lemme see if I can find it.

Maybe in the mind and matter thread.