What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality

[William]

• The universe is a simulation.

• Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one.

• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.
Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children.

• Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression.

• Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour.

• Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward.

• Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation.

Those are the basic points of the theory. The theory itself is the combination
of other theories and belief systems which human beings are influenced by.

"Human Beings" are evil aspects of consciousness and their forms and environment are specifically designed for the purpose of rehabilitation - the first step in the process.

That's what I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

This sub forum is not a debate forum. I accepted that and am happy to 'ramble' albeit coherently enough for conversation to ensure.

You obviously think that you worldview simplicity position re the 2 beliefs you mention are superior to the OP theory, but you make no attempt to verify this as being the case. Simply making the statement doesn't justify the claim.

You also have (unintentionally?) twisted what I said to suit your argument so my advice there is if you want to claim that I said something, please be courteous enough to quote me (preferably in context) so that the chance of derail or going off on an unnecessary tangent is avoided.

That would be the best way to continue this discussion, will you agree?

[Divine Insight]

This sub forum is not a debate forum. I accepted that and am happy to 'ramble' albeit coherently enough for conversation to ensure.

If you are interested in just conversation then why are you "arguing" with my views? Why not just accept my views for what they are? My views.

That's how conversations are done.

You obviously think that you worldview simplicity position re the 2 beliefs you mention are superior to the OP theory, but you make no attempt to verify this as being the case. Simply making the statement doesn't justify the claim.

I shouldn't need to "justify the claim" if we are just having a conversation and sharing our views.

It's my view that the "simplest explanation" that fully explains a problem is "superior" to an alternative explanation that requires far more complex explanations to achieve the same goal. This is also a commonly accepted ideal known as "Occam's Razor".

My "views" (just for the sake of conversation) are that Secular Naturalism does just fine as a worldview that doesn't require a "Creator God". It doesn't really have any outstanding problems. So I'm just sharing my view that this is one worldview that already is a pretty good worldview.

Then if we want to consider a potential theism I simply point out that I view Buddhism as being the best "theological" worldview precisely because it does address all the problems with theism in a very efficient manner. (i.e. it passes Occam's Razor with flying colors), at least as far as any "theistic" worldview can.

I've already stated that the worldview you've presented "could" be true, but I see no reason to go for the more complicated worldview when Buddhism is already ahead as far as Occam's Razor goes.

So those are my "justifications" for my personal opinions. Not intended to be hardcore debate evidence.

If I were going to "debate" for a worldview I would debate for Agnosticism. We simply don't have enough information to draw any compelling conclusions, so all we can say with any confidence is that we don't know the true nature of reality.

You also have (unintentionally?) twisted what I said to suit your argument so my advice there is if you want to claim that I said something, please be courteous enough to quote me (preferably in context) so that the chance of derail or going off on an unnecessary tangent is avoided.

That would be the best way to continue this discussion, will you agree?

I don't recall making any "arguments". I simply tried to point out reasons why I am not personally impressed by what you have offered thus far. If you feel that I've misunderstood something please feel free to explain what you feel I've misunderstood.

In fact I believe I said something like, "It appears to me" that you are attempting to solve "The Problem of Evil" via a need for consciousness to be "rehabilitated".

That's not an argument against your worldview. It's just an observation of what it appears to me to be trying to explain. That's all.

If I have the wrong impression you are more than free to explain what you believe I have wrong.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

• The universe is a simulation.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. I don't know what "The universe is a simulation" means. Could you elaborate?
  
  2. The universe is a simulation of what... the real universe?
  
  3. Are you saying that "nothing at all is real"?
  
  4. Since we are IN the universe, are we simulations as well?
  
  5. Is there any way to verify that the universe is a simulation, or is this mere speculation?
  
  

____________


:smileleft

[Divine Insight]

5. Is there any way to verify that the universe is a simulation, or is this mere speculation?

As far as I can see William is just offering pure speculation and was only interesting in "discussing" it rather than "debating" it as an actual claim. I do believe that he originally posted the topic in "Philosophy" which is the academic study of speculation.

I offered in return various other popular speculations about reality. Mainly Buddhism and Secular Naturalism, both of which he perceived to be "off-topic outbursts" on my part. It was only my intention to offer up some other well-known speculations of the nature of reality for the sake of comparison.

I realize that he does use the term "Theory" in the OP. But he's clearly not using that term in a rigorous scientific manner as I don't believe he has sufficient evidence for the speculations he makes.

This speculative paradigm he has suggested that imagines there to be many different levels of consciousness including assigning a consciousness to the planet Earth itself and Sol, the sun, or the entire Solar system, is a common and quite ancient religious philosophy that even predates the Biblical mythological paradigm of reality.

Clearly the philosophy has at least some merit in terms of being an ancient human idea. The term "simulation" of course is a modern term and understood within our modern understanding of how digital computers work. The ancient idea was similar, with they exception that they imagined these "simulations" or "creations" to be dreams in the minds of "Gods".

The paradigm William has suggested thus far is obviously a "Polytheistic" philosophy since it views many different levels of conscious awareness, etc. For example, the conscious awareness assocated with the Earth is often named Gaia. And then Gaia is thought of as a God. Obviously a far lesser God than the FSC he has described which would be more like Zeus (i.e. the God of Gods, or the Top Level God). Actually you could call it the Bottom Level God since everything else supposedly arises from the FSC making it the foundation of all that exists.

What I was trying to point out is that Buddhism imagines the same sort of paradigm. It simply doesn't go into the added speculation of imagining separate consciousnesses for every little aspect of the universe (like Gaia for Planet Earth).

This is why I brought Buddhism up. It's a far simpler version of the same basic idea. There exists a main FSC (or Mystical Mind) that we call "God" which then 'becomes manifest" as the universe and us. We are then a facet of the consciousness of this original God. Buddhism uses the term "Dream" rather than "Simulation" because the latter term is just a modern idea of how a "Dream" might be implemented physically using something similar to a modern day computer and HARDWARE.

It might be worthy to note that even a modern day computer can't simulate anything without hardware upon which to conduct the simulation.

So I agree with your questions Blastcat:

1. I don't know what "The universe is a simulation" means. Could you elaborate?

2. The universe is a simulation of what... the real universe?

3. Are you saying that "nothing at all is real"?

4. Since we are IN the universe, are we simulations as well?

If we are going to make the claim that the universe is a "simulation" we then need to at least offer hypotheses for the existence of a computer that can run this simulation and also offer some hypotheses for how this computer creates a universe without any preexisting hardware.

I think the ancients actually had an easier time of it proclaiming that reality is just a "Dream in the mind of God". Anyone who is willing to believe that a God can exist can then just accept that God could surely dream. So no explanation for how the dream is accomplished is required.

However, when this worldview is brought into the modern age and we start proclaiming that reality is a "simulation" we are then suggesting that we can somehow better explain it using modern day knowledge of computer simulations. But what seems to be missing here is the fact that modern day computers create simulations using a preexisting physical universe.

So trying to "explain" reality by proclaiming that it's a "simulation" doesn't really get much millage. It's like a lead zeppelin, it's never going to get off the ground, unless it's a Led Zeppelin in which case it might skyrocket to the top of the charts.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

I realize that he does use the term "Theory" in the OP. But he's clearly not using that term in a rigorous scientific manner as I don't believe he has sufficient evidence for the speculations he makes.

Right.. kinda like theology.

This speculative paradigm he has suggested that imagines there to be many different levels of consciousness including assigning a consciousness to the planet Earth itself and Sol, the sun, or the entire Solar system, is a common and quite ancient religious philosophy that even predates the Biblical mythological paradigm of reality.

Anthropomorphism of nature... or some kind of animism has been around for a very long time, for sure.

Clearly the philosophy has at least some merit in terms of being an ancient human idea.

I don't take "ancient" as some kind of criteria for "philosophical merit". Just because an idea is very old doesn't make it good.

The term "simulation" of course is a modern term and understood within our modern understanding of how digital computers work. The ancient idea was similar, with they exception that they imagined these "simulations" or "creations" to be dreams in the minds of "Gods".

Right. Back then, they would not have imagined some Matrix movie, but the idea of the dream I think is very old... From Hindu theology, no?

What I was trying to point out is that Buddhism imagines the same sort of paradigm. It simply doesn't go into the added speculation of imagining separate consciousnesses for every little aspect of the universe (like Gaia for Planet Earth).

Yep, different theologies, different speculations.

It might be worthy to note that even a modern day computer can't simulate anything without hardware upon which to conduct the simulation.

Clarke's law #3 : Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So, these martians from the future have really advanced super duper future computers that do all that. Problemo solved.

They simulate a god dreaming all of reality UP.

I think the ancients actually had an easier time of it proclaiming that reality is just a "Dream in the mind of God". Anyone who is willing to believe that a God can exist can then just accept that God could surely dream. So no explanation for how the dream is accomplished is required.

Well, they might have said "magic" and we can say " sufficiently advanced technology". Both are quite easy to imagine.

Remember the Matrix movie?
Advanced tech explained it all.

However, when this worldview is brought into the modern age and we start proclaiming that reality is a "simulation" we are then suggesting that we can somehow better explain it using modern day knowledge of computer simulations. But what seems to be missing here is the fact that modern day computers create simulations using a preexisting physical universe.

And the god has an easier time imagining all of that stuff "out of nothing"?
Why... Is it because of the word "magic" instead of the longer phrase " sufficiently advanced technology "? I didn't have any trouble at all suspending my disbelief in the Matrix movies.

So trying to "explain" reality by proclaiming that it's a "simulation" doesn't really get much millage. It's like a lead zeppelin, it's never going to get off the ground, unless it's a Led Zeppelin in which case it might skyrocket to the top of the charts.

I really miss those guys.

The simulation idea to me means that from NOTHING to go on, someone dreamed all of this up using.. some creative talent. Maybe the martians from the future have an imaginative universe generating machine for that, that they god from a god, which they had previously generated out of a god generating machine. Quite clever, those martians.

Hate the green color.

[Divine Insight]

I don't take "ancient" as some kind of criteria for "philosophical merit". Just because an idea is very old doesn't make it good.

I never meant to imply that any philosophy has "scientific merit".

I simply meant that this idea as philosophical speculation has "philosophical merit" in that many humans have been embracing this speculation for many generations.

This would be in contrast to philosophical speculations that even most philosophers or laymen would shrug off as not even being worthy of speculation.

I'll at least give the idea merit as a potentially viable speculation.

But even here I will be the first to agree that "Potentially Viable" is a pretty meaningless phrase in this context because it hasn't been established in what way this should be thought of as "viable"?

My only argument to that is to point to the mere fact that anything exists at all. Clearly things are "viable" that we cannot explain.

I mean when you get right down to the nitty gritty of it all even Secular Naturalism is a form of "Mysticism". Why does ANYTHING exist at all? That's surely a mystery and that's the root source of the concept of "mysticism".

So even Secular Naturalism is a form of "mysticism" whether we like it or not.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]


[center]Speculation 101
Part Two...[/center]

I don't take "ancient" as some kind of criteria for "philosophical merit". Just because an idea is very old doesn't make it good.

I never meant to imply that any philosophy has "scientific merit".

I simply meant that this idea as philosophical speculation has "philosophical merit" in that many humans have been embracing this speculation for many generations.

Time misspent.

This would be in contrast to philosophical speculations that even most philosophers or laymen would shrug off as not even being worthy of speculation.

I'm shrugging.
Little green men? Ancient gods? Your favorite fiction du jour?
I'm shrugging and yawning, and more fascinated by that wall.

I'll at least give the idea merit as a potentially viable speculation.

You should really read "God's Debris".
It's at least that idea is a little bit original.

This idea here has all the originality of a Hollywood sci-fi movie. Some people are really impressed by those.

But even here I will be the first to agree that "Potentially Viable" is a pretty meaningless phrase in this context because it hasn't been established in what way this should be thought of as "viable"?

As viable as Santa and little green men from the future.
And the Matrix movies.

What shall it be... blue pill or red?

My only argument to that is to point to the mere fact that anything exists at all. Clearly things are "viable" that we cannot explain.

Yeah, clearly humans have trouble with this whole "knowing absolutely everything" business. So let's make stuff up.

Pass the bottle.

I mean when you get right down to the nitty gritty of it all even Secular Naturalism is a form of "Mysticism". Why does ANYTHING exist at all? That's surely a mystery and that's the root source of the concept of "mysticism".

Matt Dillahunty makes a distinction between "metaphysical naturalism" and "methodological naturalism". I think it's ridiculous to pretend to know what we really don't know. It might be fun... pass the other drug. I suggest "shrooms", if you want visions.

So even Secular Naturalism is a form of "mysticism" whether we like it or not.

If you pretend to know what you really don't, ok, that's mysticism.
Why would you want to do that?

I don't.

[William]

____________

Questions:


1. I don't know what "The universe is a simulation" means. Could you elaborate?

I use the word as it is understood as a concept. Specifically to do with the OP theory points, everything is a 'simulation' and consciousness is that which is real.

So 'Simulation' is that which has a beginning and can be experienced by consciousness.

2. The universe is a simulation of what... the real universe?

No. From the OP;

• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience.

3. Are you saying that "nothing at all is real"?

Consciousness is real. Anything which consciousness experience can be considered 'reality' because consciousness is experiencing it.

As the OP title say's;
"What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality."

4. Since we are IN the universe, are we simulations as well?

All things within the universe are simulated. Our forms are simulations. We, (consciousnesses) are not.

5. Is there any way to verify that the universe is a simulation, or is this mere speculation?

There is no known way to verify if it is or is not. Therefore, either way, it's speculation/presumption.

We ARE existing within a simulation - this universe IS a simulation.
We are NOT existing within a simulation - this universe is NOT a simulation.

Both speculative in relation consciousness and the universe.

[Neatras]

I'm sorry man. It's not very sporting of me to try and drill you, but part of conveying ideas is conveying them effectively. Your entire posts reek of tautological question begging. You insert "simulation" as a substitute for "real" often enough that I could restructure your entire post to demonstrate this without changing its meaning.

Tautologies are ineffective at relating ideas, which is largely why I think Blastcat is having difficulty with your definitions. You haven't defined them well.

____________

Questions:


1. I don't know what "The universe is a simulation" means. Could you elaborate?

I use the word as it is understood as a concept. Specifically to do with the OP theory points, everything is a 'simulation' and consciousness is that which is real.

So 'Simulation' is that which has a beginning and can be experienced by consciousness.

1. "I use the word as it is understood as a concept" is not an answer. The understood definition of simulation is "approximation" or "imitation" of a real world event or system.

2. You assert that everything is a "simulation" and consciousness is that which is real. You are conflating "simulation" with "real" and in doing so, reducing your ability to distinguish between the words, hence turning your future points into tautologies.

2. The universe is a simulation of what... the real universe?

No. From the OP;

• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience.

Since you've asserted everything is a simulation, that implies this ill-defined consciousness created reality. Which is, of course, unsubstantiated. But at the very least, I can clear away your pseudoscientific use of the word simulation; the meaning doesn't change whether I use "simulation" or "reality," and the only real reason the word simulation would be used at all is to try and form a semi-sophisticated phrasing that appeals to scientific minds. Those who promote mysticism do this a lot. See: crystal healing, homeopathy, etc.

3. Are you saying that "nothing at all is real"?

Consciousness is real. Anything which consciousness experience can be considered 'reality' because consciousness is experiencing it.

As the OP title say's;
"What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality."

Not much to talk about here.

4. Since we are IN the universe, are we simulations as well?

All things within the universe are simulated. Our forms are simulations. We, (consciousnesses) are not.

All things within the universe are real. Our forms are real.

Unfortunately, because you conflated "reality" and simulations so early on, this is something which I can syntactically piece together, making your earlier assertions lack much weight. Because you haven't defined simulations in a coherent, rational, or distinct manner, it becomes nebulous and impossible to specify for anyone listening to your words. They are left to insert their own interpretations, which I feel Divine Insight has done on more than one occasion, attempting to graft your ideology with his own... presumptions, we'll call them.

5. Is there any way to verify that the universe is a simulation, or is this mere speculation?

There is no known way to verify if it is or is not. Therefore, either way, it's speculation/presumption.

We ARE existing within a simulation - this universe IS a simulation.
We are NOT existing within a simulation - this universe is NOT a simulation.

Both speculative in relation consciousness and the universe.

But both need you to describe what a simulation is. I didn't even have to try very hard to come up with a definition that is both coherent and agreed upon by most who speak English; and it doesn't offer any of the properties you seem to want to use to describe "reality."

_______________________________________________________

You're probably not familiar with me, if you haven't hung around the Science & Religion sub-forum, but I'm trying to be light and easygoing with my posts. I understand if I come off harsh, but this kind of thing is important: even if it isn't a debate, being able to define your terms adequately can make it easier for people like myself and Blastcat to understand you better, which is the goal here.

Much of your post is about personal revelation/speculation, and I have no cause for picking at it or dissecting your methodology. It would be helpful to me if you went back to the basics, and tried to find the wording that best defines a simulation without conflating it with 'reality,' and thus removing any need to use the word at all.

Because my interpretation is limited, this is all I can assume:

That you believe there is a pristine, unified form of consciousness (which isn't entirely well defined itself, but that's for later). You also believe that reality, as we experience it, is a projection or nonexistent concept/process/system that appears to exist only as far as consciousness experiences it, otherwise it does not exist.

I am trying to understand this, but if my above paragraph isn't relaying the information you gave, then I believe the onus is on you to correct me by using clearer terms. If not, then I'm at a loss.

[Divine Insight]

.

The simulation's speculation
but the realization's real
and the realization's permutation
is the consciousness you feel

Your brain is but a shadow
in a holographic game
and everything you think you thought
is but a flicker in a flame

A realistic world
is an optimistic dream
but one you cannot touch
beyond the magic quantum screen

For ever time you think you have
the quantum takes a leap
and leaves you dangling in the void
to lose another night of sleep