3 ms·

>This does not mean "reality does not exist" - how would that statement even make sense? Or that our experience is an "illusion" or "wrong". This supposes there

>This does not mean "reality does not exist" - how would that statement even make sense? Or that our experience is an "illusion" or "wrong". This supposes there is some "correct" way to experience the world which might be different from how the human mind experiences it. Imagine the Matrix (movie) or any simulation or virtual reality. The "worlds" in those are just bits inside a computer. So that is the "Reality" of the world we are sensing, and the world that the simulation shows only exists within our consciousness. Not in "reality". If you take that to our reality, then the actual reality (The actual source of our sensations) can look nothing like the reality we experience..Right? EDIT: At this point, the word "real" loses its meaning and relevance. There is not even a need for a higher reality that acts as a source of our sensations. Think about dreams. It seems that consciousness is capable of generating realities on its own.. Is it possible that there is one big super consciousness, that generates the shared dream we all experience as reality, and could it be what we call god, and when..we are praying..we, the sub consciousnesses are subtly influencing the super consciousness and the dream it creates?..I mean the reality..?

olavk 9y ago
The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all. The input to our senses is real - they originate from outside the mind. Even if we are just brains in vat or whatever, the sensory input still originate from outside the mind itself, which make them real as opposed to dreams or hallucinations which originate in the mind. The rest is just metaphysics and don't change anything (unless you are able to escape to the "outer" world like in the Matrix, but then you are just back to square one, philosophically speaking). George Berkely examined an even simpler hypothesis - there is no "outer world" and neither is there any simulation: The sensory input is simply generated directly by God. But again, if you follow this line of thinking it doesn't actually change anything. Reality is still just as real. In any case, the experienced reality does not "look like" the sensory input, they are simply not comparable like this. Do certain wavelengths of light "look red"? Yes, but only because this is how our mind process this input.
- buvanshak 9y ago
  >The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all. I get that. I was answering your question about a specific version of a reality being "real".. > The input to our senses is real - they originate from outside the mind. Is there any proof for this? >The sensory input is simply generated directly by God. But again, if you follow this line of thinking it doesn't actually change anything. Reality is still just as real. Not sure. Then isn't there a level of reality where God resides? I have another Idea. The only thing that "exists" is consciousness, which is an entity that is outside the scope of time and space, and hence does not need a realm to exist. It is just there. The whole universe is somehow encoded within this consciousness. Every conscious brain has somehow access to a part of this super consciousness. This ability to access the consciousness in such high detail as possible by the human brain, created a tremendous evolutionary advantage and caused the human beings to emerge as the dominant species in this earth. And also, the sensory input is not "generated" for individual consciousness, but is just a result of the being being inside/part of this universe. I have equated God = super consciousness. Because that simplifies a lot of stuff and does not create another entity of arbitrary nature (apart from consciousness itself).
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Final mistake. If it exists if has to exist somewhere right? Not necessarily in terms of time and/or space but definitely some sort of location, perhaps even describable truly only by higher mathematics. If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument. (Because the purpose of the argument is to describe.) Fixed the argument for you.
    - buvanshak 9y ago
      > If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument... I will ask you a question. Suppose there is a world being simulated by using a normal everyday computer. Say the world of GTA5 or something like that. Now in that world, how will you describe the location of the computer it is being simulated on? Does the computer "exist" for beings inside the simulation? On a continuing thought... Even though the computer does not exist for the beings inside the simulation, they possibly can influence the simulated world by some hack. For example, a being inside can think of some particular thing, that will result in a particular byte pattern in the memory and can trigger a bug in the program (or a hidden feature), granting the respective being some kind of super powers..This might appear as magic in the simulated world..
coliveira 9y ago
> Is it possible that there is one big super consciousness And here you see one of the motivations for these strange proposals of "simulation" that we see lately. It is a way to reintroduce in philosophy the idea of a powerful creator. As we advance the understanding of physics, it becomes clear that a creator is not probable, and not even necessary. So, a new generation starts to propose that everything we live is not true and only a simulation from a super powerful mind...
- buvanshak 9y ago
  > It is a way to reintroduce in philosophy the idea of a powerful creator. First of all, I am not sure the super consciousness model is the same as the simulation. Because nothing is being simulated. The beings and the world is part of the same reality. >As we advance the understanding of physics, it becomes clear that a creator is not probable, and not even necessary. Physics? I think these things are way beyond the reach of what physics can reach. There needs to be another discipline that studies the nature of consciousness and I think mankind's next breakthrough ll happen in that direction...

olavk 9y ago

The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all. The input to our senses is real - they originate from outside the mind. Even if we are just brains in vat or whatever, the sensory input still originate from outside the mind itself, which make them real as opposed to dreams or hallucinations which originate in the mind. The rest is just metaphysics and don't change anything (unless you are able to escape to the "outer" world like in the Matrix, but then you are just back to square one, philosophically speaking). George Berkely examined an even simpler hypothesis - there is no "outer world" and neither is there any simulation: The sensory input is simply generated directly by God. But again, if you follow this line of thinking it doesn't actually change anything. Reality is still just as real. In any case, the experienced reality does not "look like" the sensory input, they are simply not comparable like this. Do certain wavelengths of light "look red"? Yes, but only because this is how our mind process this input.

buvanshak 9y ago
>The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all. I get that. I was answering your question about a specific version of a reality being "real".. > The input to our senses is real - they originate from outside the mind. Is there any proof for this? >The sensory input is simply generated directly by God. But again, if you follow this line of thinking it doesn't actually change anything. Reality is still just as real. Not sure. Then isn't there a level of reality where God resides? I have another Idea. The only thing that "exists" is consciousness, which is an entity that is outside the scope of time and space, and hence does not need a realm to exist. It is just there. The whole universe is somehow encoded within this consciousness. Every conscious brain has somehow access to a part of this super consciousness. This ability to access the consciousness in such high detail as possible by the human brain, created a tremendous evolutionary advantage and caused the human beings to emerge as the dominant species in this earth. And also, the sensory input is not "generated" for individual consciousness, but is just a result of the being being inside/part of this universe. I have equated God = super consciousness. Because that simplifies a lot of stuff and does not create another entity of arbitrary nature (apart from consciousness itself).
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Final mistake. If it exists if has to exist somewhere right? Not necessarily in terms of time and/or space but definitely some sort of location, perhaps even describable truly only by higher mathematics. If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument. (Because the purpose of the argument is to describe.) Fixed the argument for you.
  - buvanshak 9y ago
    > If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument... I will ask you a question. Suppose there is a world being simulated by using a normal everyday computer. Say the world of GTA5 or something like that. Now in that world, how will you describe the location of the computer it is being simulated on? Does the computer "exist" for beings inside the simulation? On a continuing thought... Even though the computer does not exist for the beings inside the simulation, they possibly can influence the simulated world by some hack. For example, a being inside can think of some particular thing, that will result in a particular byte pattern in the memory and can trigger a bug in the program (or a hidden feature), granting the respective being some kind of super powers..This might appear as magic in the simulated world..

coliveira 9y ago

> Is it possible that there is one big super consciousness And here you see one of the motivations for these strange proposals of "simulation" that we see lately. It is a way to reintroduce in philosophy the idea of a powerful creator. As we advance the understanding of physics, it becomes clear that a creator is not probable, and not even necessary. So, a new generation starts to propose that everything we live is not true and only a simulation from a super powerful mind...

buvanshak 9y ago
> It is a way to reintroduce in philosophy the idea of a powerful creator. First of all, I am not sure the super consciousness model is the same as the simulation. Because nothing is being simulated. The beings and the world is part of the same reality. >As we advance the understanding of physics, it becomes clear that a creator is not probable, and not even necessary. Physics? I think these things are way beyond the reach of what physics can reach. There needs to be another discipline that studies the nature of consciousness and I think mankind's next breakthrough ll happen in that direction...