₦airaland Forum

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.

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.

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 "

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"

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:
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..

SIGMATRON:
All created worlds are simulations.

What are they simulating? And how do you know?

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

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.

Freshtruth:
Pls am worried I dreamt of loosing my teeth's like 2 fell off y I shaking inside my mouth meaning pls

You're the only one that can successfully interpret your dream . Each dream symbol is a symbolic representation of something that is uniquely connected to your own life experiences.

However , certain dream symbols have universal meaning or have meaning that can apply nearly to everyone that experiences them.

Dream of losing ones teeth or tooth symbolises the loss of a close family member usually a sibling or a very close friend. When one loses ones tooth at certain point in life one cannot regrow it, like losing life. It can also represent the loss of any other thing that is irreplaceable in ones life.

So based on this ,the dream is a either preparing for something shocking or distressing that is about to happen in your outer life so you not badly shaking by it when it happens or a warning to take action in order to prevent a loss of something irreplaceable in your life.

But don't take this is correct interpretation. Like I said you are the only one who can successfully interpret your dream. One time I had a dream in which I lost my tooth. But it was a a period I was experiencing serious toothache and was worried about losing the tooth . The dream then represent the dissipation of tension created by the fear or worry of losing my tooth, just like wet dreams which helps to dissipate sexual tension but which most people interpret to mean "spirit wife or husband"

So look into your your life for answers to what the dream portends. That is the only way to interpret your dream correctly. During your quite moment ask yourself " what is the meaning of this dream" and write down immediately what comes to your mind.

If you don't get it right the first time, the dream will repeat until you know the answer.

DeepSight:
+
Tried. Banned again.

Don't reply to him directly. Click on the quote icon at the end of his post, copy the quoted text, and then paste it into a new reply. That way your post will appear as a separate response .

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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 .

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

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

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 .

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

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

chieveboy:

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

chieveboy:
Its takes sense to make sense of things.

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:
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..

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

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. .

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.

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 very 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.
.

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.

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. .
.

. 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.

[b] 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? Ihe 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..


.

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?

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.

.

Oh you actually murdered your science up there .

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:
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.

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:
I will reply the below now:

And that's because you can't provide evidence for your syntactic operation and also demonstrate " backverting". It is ok. I will let go of that because I see you have a pathological inability to admit your mistake when you are wrong.

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

Please drop the gaslightimg talk. Focus on what you have to say so we can see how your own mind really works.

The "boldened" has not proven correspondence, "As above so below, So below,so above.In fact, it proves ,from what I explained, that the computer is an imitation of the real thing, the human mind. And this is where you have completely missed it. Correspondence is not referring to equivalence of objects between planes but about similarities dissimilarities , and relationship.

You listed three parts of the mind and deliberately omitted the fourth part, the Ahankara, because you knew it would render your argument invalid.

The Ahankara is the. "I" factor , the "I am" . This is what gives us individual identity and self -awareness .And it is completely absent in computers . Computers have no sense of self.They are not aware they exist or even aware they are merely replicating the human thinking process. They only process mechanically data feed into them. You cannot use a computer to replace your mind when it is completely destroyed. But you can replace your computer with another one if it is either stolen or destroyed. In fact, you need a sound mind to operate a computer in in the first place.

The same thing with the universe. It is a living thing. It is conscious and alive with diverse live forms. Computers are dead circuitry. There is no correspondence between them at the fundamental level.Those arguing for computer simulation of the world have only found something similar operating in nature and used it to make a false conclusion, like the blind men who touched different parts of the elephant and declared they each know what the whole animal was.

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.\

This is even worse.. There is no correspondence here. The B2 bodily design was inspired by that of the peregrine Falcon. But inspiration is not identity.The thing inspired is not the same as the thing that inspired it.

The B2 does not depend on the bird for its existence, neither does the bird depend on the B2 for its existence They don't affect each other in anyway. If Falcons starts to go extinct, it wouldn't because of the B2 bombers having issues.

So where is the correspondence? .

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

. You don't know what you want to do. The "in house sanity check" will certainly turn out positive for you because you deliberately omitted, Ahankar from your list to create false equivalence between the human mind and computers and then use this to project onto the cosmos.

So don't waste your time doing any sanity check. The result is already known by me and anyone following this.

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

No. This is not what I "propagated" You have changed it as usual to fit own narrative. I did not say "all things above dovetails into the most mundane form of manifestation in the physical".

I provided the full quote, "As above, so below. So below,as above and explained it has to do with correspondence. What is true on one plane of existence finds correspondence in all planes of existence. In other words, when something because true "above" it automatically becomes true "below" and vice versa.. As above, so below . So below, as above is not about equivalent objects between planes but relationship that exist between them: the below affecting the above, the above affecting the below.

It is like the relationship that exists between the computer generated figures which appears in your phone each time you check your bank balance. The figures are a reflection of physical cash, the source, the bank is saving on your behalf. The reflection on your phone also exist as real money like the physical cash in the bank. You can spend it through transfers. This analogy,though not perfect, explains correspondence. As above, so below ". And this was what I "propagated ", not the caricature you came up with, " dovetails in the into the mundane"....

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.

No need to call on them. You have distorted the truth by removing Ahankar from the list calling on them to serve as judges is you trying to fool them with your distortion of the truth. The computer does not find correspondence in the human mind because of the absence of the "I am". No way you can twist this without exposing how your mind works

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.

This is all noise and a deflection.

You invented the word "backverting". Yes, but once you do such a thing, you are expected to explain what it refers to since it is not found in any dictionary. When you fail to do so, you are simply talking to yourself whether it is in quotes or not.

Demonstrate the "backverting" and provide evidence for the syntactic operation you carried out for flow. It is as simple as that.

If you can't do that , then you invented that word to hide so you don't admit your mistake and apologize.

And you are not the only one I copied. So why making this all about yourself. When you replied to Deepsight, did you not also.mentiom me and another person?

You are free to reply my post especially if I quote but wrong to answer for another person a personal question meant for them alone.

Your problem is your don't like admitting your mistake.

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.

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:
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.

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

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:

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?

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

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]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...

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
.

DeepSight:
+
Fair enough.


+
Nonetheless logic remains the pillar for these discussions.

But logo is not truth, nor is it evidence. I'm certain you know this.

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.

Yes,, it's natural to have differing viewpoints in philosophy, precisely because philosophy relies on logic, reason, and mental speculation, not direct experience.

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 simulaton .

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 never mentioned "older traditions" in that way. I mentioned authentic traditions like Vendata, which began in the distant past but continue to exist today , teaching exactly what they always taught about the makeup of the world how it came to be.

Nothing has changed. If you know what they actually teach and place it alongside simulation, the difference is very clear.

Authentic traditions teaches that the world is a manifestation or "reflection " of consciousness while simulation argues that it is a fake code created by external beings.

Authentic traditions describes a living, organic process. Simulation describes a mechanical, technological creation.

What authentic traditions teaches has remained unchanged for millennia. Simulation is a modern invention of the computer age.
It is a modern science myth, like the 17th century idea that the universe is a clockwork mechanism. People project their dominant technology onto the cosmos. In the past, it was clocks, now computers. This tells us more about the times we are living in than about reality .

The ancient traditions are still here. Nothing has changed. Study them directly, not through the lens of modern technology

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 -

This is where you are greatly mistaken. You think simulaton is an ancient idea because both simulaton proponents and ancient traditions refer to an inner something beyond this world. But this is a misreading of those ancient texts, texts that still exist, still teach, and still guide spiritual seekers today. .

Ancient traditions ( Vendata , for instance) says the world is a "reflection" in quotes. It has provisional reality pointing to a deeper source, divine consciousness. Simulation, on the other hand, argues that the world is a simulation, literally fake code.



What I will do next is this: I will take each ancient idea you assembled below and provide their correct interpretation, not as isolated quotes, but as living teachings understood by those who practice the "hidden" principle they contain

For example, the full quote for "As above, so below" that you keep bringing up is; "As above, so below; so below, so above". This is not a one -way statement. It is bidirectional.

It means; As above,so below. What exists in the higher realms is reflected in the lower realms. As below, so above. What exists in the lower realms is also reflected in the higher realms

It is referring to correspondence, a two-way relationship. The principle teaches that what is true on one plane of reality is equally true on all planes. So there' is no "original" and "copy". No "real" or. " "unreal ". Everything is. There is only one reality expressing itself at different levels of density and consciousness

What is true spiritually is true physically. What is true physically is true spiritually

What is true in the macrocosm ( the universe) Is equally true in the microcosm ( the individual) , and vice versa

So then, which one reflects the other? Your answer please.

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.

No. They are not rich with it. You have misread them completely as I have already proven with Hermeticism..

Cc Lordreed, Chieveboy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How she sees it from her position.

tctrills:
Deepsight is looking at it from a different angle. He is looking from the angle of us being like a virtual reality playing out or simulations.
I do not necessarily agree with your beliefs but you and Deepsight do not seem to be saying the same thing

Ok then. Let's wait for him to respond before passing final judgement.

tctrills:
Now you are pulling on to straws. Even you know that you are using an extremely weak argument.
From the above, it seems like Gemini also did a copy and paste with little variations to what I explained.

Live: Our biological life comes from Him.

Move: Our ability to act and progress is sustained by Him.

Are (Being): Our fundamental identity and existence are rooted in His will.

So don't just hold on to one word, Atmosphere and claim you are in line with the above.
Please let's all be intellectually honest.

Compare Gemini to myinitial comments
In whom we live = He give us life
In whom we move = gives us the strength to move
And have our being = we belong to Him

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 that's not what he is saying. You can go back and review this thread, he isn't talking about being created in the image of God or that we share His attributes.

I think you're talking past each other. The idea that we're cells in the body of God is a metaphor which you have interpreted literally..

This understanding comes from Vedanta, the ancient spiritual philosophy of India, which teaches that the same divine consciousnesses (Brahman) exist in all beings. So we are not separate from "GOd", we are expressions of it. "God" is not a person but spirit or what science calls pure energy and we are all energy beings occupying a physical body.

Unless Deepsight has another interpretation, the people who use the figurative expression don't recognise a separate invisible being living in an invisible plane, heaven, who created the world and everything in it. They say that each individual, you and I, is an inseparable part of Spirit, "God", divine consciousnesses. This should not be confused with a supreme deity we must worship from a distance. In the words, the God we are worshipping and praying to is the same as us.

The separateness we sense, according to them, is created by the illusion of the physical body we are occupying .We are one with God whether we realise it or not.

Jesus came to this realisation, hence the statement "I and the Father are one". Which Father? Spirit, divine consciousnesses, pure energy. But this truth he taught has been submerged in traditional church teachings.

tctrills:
I have moved the discussion to the new thread but if you are looking for excuses to hate Christianity, don't you realise that there are more holes in the doctrine you are entertaining.
The doctrine of man being God's cells.
If this is true, it means that we make up God and God is a summation of our personalities, actions, beliefs, weaknesses, strength, and morals.
It makes God imperfect, weak, jealous, full of hate, fearful and all other human traits both good and bad.

Is that your position on God? Let's discuss.

I don't think Deepsght is saying we are literally cells in the body of God. That statement is metaphorical reference to something that is even contained in the Bible: "we were created in the image of God" that is, we all share the same attributes of that we were created from or are part of. "Ye are gods"

DeepSight:
+
A most interesting take. You generally agree that this world is a sort of artificial rendition or simulation?

I will come back later to answer your reply up there, but in the meantime, please do me this favour, which will benefit you too..

My replies to Chieveboy are being hidden despite containing no violations of forum rules. I suspect he has weaponised the report button to trigger auto-moderation for obvious reasons: he cannot defend his position and admit he deliberately edited my comments to misrepresent me.

So please ask him this on my behalf;?

If he claims to be saying the same thing being discussed here, that authentic esoteric traditions teach simulation, then why does he place the words "computer" and "simulation" in quotation marks every time he reference the idea?

This question is part of what my hidden replies contained. I ask him directly but my posts keeps disappearing .

Putting words in quotes like that signals that he is not taking them literally. It means he has a different understanding, one that he won't openly state because he wants to appear in agreement with you while actually holding a different position.

I know what Eckankar teaches concerning the nature of this world because I was once part of the group. They teach that the world was created by Divine spirit as a training ground for souls to attain spiritual maturity and eventually become a co-worker with God. Nothing in their teaching says the world is a computer simulation created by advanced beings


Does he believe this world is literally computer simulation or does he mean something else? And if something else what is it?

I cannot ask him directly myself because my replies are hidden. But perhaps you can.

Thank you.

DeepSight:
+
Thank you, I will come back soon.

Ok. I await your come back.