> I really don't think a logical, academic review of what I think the reality is of much use [...] If the line of reasoning precludes itself from factual consi

> I really don't think a logical, academic review of what I think the reality is of much use [...] If the line of reasoning precludes itself from factual considerations, there might be very little point in discussing it other than perhaps for entertainment. Because if we're consigning ourselves to exchanging arbitrary stuff we simply made up, this becomes a collaborative fiction thread. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do feel we should mark it as such. But even in fiction there are rules - readers expect a certain amount of logical consistency. > our idea of ourselves is actually not unique, that we are just a very large variation of the basic properties of consciousness (something we can't really quite put a finger on), then it can be said that we are in a simulation, for the same reason, you dream Just because these statements appear in the same sentence doesn't mean they're connected. If I understood correctly, you're asserting that: a) the human experience is not unique, neither on the individual nor on the species level and b) this experience is a variation of the basic properties of consciousness even though nobody has any idea what that even means and therefore c) it follows that we are living in a simulation in which d) we're all daydreaming. It's not difficult to see at which junctions your audience loses the ability to follow along. > Only when our innate animal like instincts are squelched can we experience reality in it's rawest and purest form, something buddhist tibetian monks often frequent It's true we can't much trust our senses and unaided intuitions at all. That's why we have very cool sensors and mathematical models. You can't meditate your way to scientific discovery. > such narrow mindedness can only come from the choice to view reality and oneself with the same set of practices used in laboratory or whatever environment where such mentality has been useful This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes on in a laboratory. The scientific process is not a mechanism designed to confirm arbitrary postulates. > Quantumn theory suggests that we live in our own simulation create by us Here the onus would be on you to show how you came to that conclusion.