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.

[Divine Insight]

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.

I totally agree, and I was originally responding to the original points from a "purely philosophical" perspective, not a scientific perspective. Because this thread was originally posted in Philosophy, not science.

I will be the first to agree that philosophy is just a game of pure speculation. I agree with Stephen Hawking that pure philosophy as a serious discipline is "dead". I suggest moving over to science if a serious approach is desired.

So my original replies were totally from a "philosophical" perspective. (i.e. open to playing the game of speculation).

However, I have to agree with Neatras that even in the field of philosophy one should define their terms it they are going to try to take philosophy even remotely seriously.

[William]

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.


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.

The problem with arguing semantics is that more often than not it distracts from the topic and is more an exercise in mental masturbation than anything particularly constrictive to discussion.

Most individuals are happy enough to get the gist of what is being said and when in doubt, ask for clarification. Very few choose to get pedantic or refuse to get into the spirit of discussion until all the eyes are dotted and the teas crossed and tend to be a [potential] distraction rather than a contributor. Little things like the words in bold tend to annoy them.

Just saying so as to make it clear - get into the gist or find something more to your liking.

Since you've asserted everything is a simulation, that implies this ill-defined consciousness created reality.

Not according to the OP theory;

• 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.

FS is defined enough. What is more than just implied is that the simulations are purposefully designed.

From the perspective of FS, all things are not 'real' because IT is the only reality and creates what I have decided to call 'simulations' in order to denote the difference between that which experiences (FSC) and that which is experienced.

from the OP;

• 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.

I could call these 'simulations' I could call these 'reality membranes' but in a sense that is what simulations are. Semantics are the distraction. Getting the gist is far more pliable in relation to basic purposeful communication.

Which is, of course, unsubstantiated.

Of course. What could possibly substantiate it for you?

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.

Distracting from the gist is pointless and wasteful in relation to discussion. It is an idea. It takes into account the reality we are experiencing and chooses to presume it is a simulation - which in all fairness gives an alternative to the presumptive argument that the universe is 'real' - that argument being 'All that exists' or 'NOT a simulation" etc.

See? We are informed/taught the universe is 'real' not just because we are experiencing it as such but also because of the presumption that it is 'real' as in 'all that exists' and 'not a simulation'... Scientists generally do not have a problem with the idea that the universe could be a simulation...but generally steer away from taking that idea seriously because of the connotations the idea presents, to which they are largely unable to confirm or deny or see any particular use for in terms of science.

An example of this can be viewed here;



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.

We as consciousness do experience our forms as real, yes.

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.

Presumptions they are. There is no particular problem with the way I have presented the idea. People generally 'get' the concept of simulations appearing real but are not. The particular focus in this is that "there is more to what we think of as 'reality' than meets the eye." There are possibly alternate realities. Our universe might not be the only one which exists or that we may experience after we are done with this one etc...it isn't that hard, it isn't a new concept which needs explaining. There is no conflation happening in light of this understanding.

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."

Semantics.

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.

Well hopefully you can now get the gist of what is being said here. Of course the OP theory doesn't go into any details but simply states what I think are the main points, which I am able to discuss in fuller detail - they obviously 'beg questions' and that is part of the OP design.

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.

How it is written will suffice and if you can get your mind around it, then all the better.

What is REAL is consciousness. What is experienced as 'real' is simulation (or reality membranes if that might help dislodge you from semantics.) That is the gist of it. As consciousness YOU are REAL. As to the universe, YOU as REAL cannot be sure if it is 'real' (in relation to the broader reason the word is used to denote the universe) but presume that it is real (also in relation to the broader reason the word is used to denote the universe)

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).

On FSC, yes - you got the gist.

I cannot say for sure that I believe the OP theory but it is what I think about consciousness in relation to this reality, so I am entertaining the concept...If the theory can be sunk through logical critical thinking, then no, there would be no reason to believe it.
If not, then perhaps it is worthwhile believing it...but the nature of the OP theory doesn't lend itself to faith based belief. More the belief which simply accepts something as being 'most likely'.

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.

It exists for a PURPOSE, as the OP Theory stipulates. Once the purpose is fulfilled, there would be no particular need for it to exist.

Try thinking about this another way. Do you think this universe would exist IF there was no consciousness within it or viewing it from outside of it?

Now if you believed that the universe was REAL, then you might answer "Why yes! Of course it would still exist!"

But would that really be the case? What would there be which could varify and acknowledge its existence if no consciousness were within it or even viewing it from some point outside of it?

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.

Well I answered your post without reading it through first (which is usually the way I like to reply to posts) and it appears to me that you were more gruff at the beginning than towards the end.

My answers also tend to reflect that. You seem to be wanting to move forward with this in discussion and I would rather encourage that than for you to depart from the thread.

I understand your thinking that conflating terminology is happening and I also understand how annoying that this can be but mostly I put that down to too stringent language requirements which act more as a purveyor to limitation than communication, which is why I advise getting the gist and going with that and if in doubt ask for clarity (which you have done) and hopefully I have been able to clarify enough for this to no longer be a barrier.

Of note, the OP theory, while in point form is concise enough, is still dealing with a major and complex subject which requires the use of metaphor/analogy to attempt to convey broader meaning into those points so that they might be better understood (even as they beg the questions - they are designed to do just that) and be able to show that the pieces the points represent can fit into each other to present a larger coherent picture.

Having said as much, I have and will continue to quote from the OP because I anticipated certain reactions and designed the OP with this in mind.

The theory is something I have been working on for many years and internet interaction over those years has contributed to its existence as it is.

I agree that I am not schooled in the nuances of "proper" use of language and make no apology for that. I am that I am, and for the most part, the way I use language hasn't been a barrier to communication other than for the sticklers - who really don't give a toss what I think anyway, so all in all, *whatever* and *shrugs*...

..If you get my gist...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 18 by William]




[center]Five Questions:
Part One:Magical thinking[/center]

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.

I am simulating you.
You are simulating back.

Or something like that.
I assure you that I have NO idea how your special kind of "magical thinking" is supposed to work. Magic doesn't make much sense to me, never has.

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.

I might not have made my question very clear to you. I didn't ask what created the simulation.

If there is nothing at all before this Simulation, how can it be SIMILAR to something? We know that simulation means "pretense" or "fake", but at the root, it has "Similar".

What is this simulation similar TO?

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.

How do we know that "consciousness" is real?
How do you deal with cognitive ERRORS?

If the only thing that is really real is consciousness. Then, whatever something that is conscious is thinking about becomes magically real. Thoughts are magically real. What the thoughts magically produce are only SIMULATIONS ( and also, somehow real )

If I dream of Santa.. that's real because I thought of it. But, Santa is a mere SIMULATION of a Santa.

Someone out there is magically thinking about simulations.

Any idea who?
Or is this a disembodied mind?

Why would we expect THAT?

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

Oh, I assure you, I really don't understand that.
Some magical thinking thing or person is making magical thoughts about simulations?

Something like that?

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 in the universe are simulated but us... ahhhh contradiction alert, friend.
If I am consciousness, do I get to do magic too?

If not, why not?
I'm thinking REAL hard about a million bucks, by the way.

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.

Ok.
So, you are just pretending about a special kind of pretending.
Something or someone out there is pretending all of this up. I think it's you, but never mind that.

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.

So, why pretend to know one or the other?
Isn't that a big honking waste of "simulated" time?

[William]

I am simulating you.
You are simulating back.

Or something like that.

Not really. You and I are consciousness within form. The form is simulated for the experience.
We are aspects of FSC

• 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.

I assure you that I have NO idea how your special kind of "magical thinking" is supposed to work. Magic doesn't make much sense to me, never has.

Magical Thinking (wiki) is not specific to the OP theory because it explains the relationships as well as what caused the effect.
I have often wondered if magical thinking is involved in the belief that the Big Bang happened spontaneously for no reason and came from nothing and that all the stuff of the universe magically appeared from this nothing through an enormous energetic blast which also came from nothing.

Sounds to me like 'magic'.

I might not have made my question very clear to you. I didn't ask what created the simulation.

Well be that as it may, unless you want to believe in magic, the notion of something which has a beginning but wasn't created is a special kind of magic. Clearly the universe has had a beginning.

If there is nothing at all before this Simulation, how can it be SIMILAR to something? We know that simulation means "pretense" or "fake", but at the root, it has "Similar".

What is this simulation similar TO?

A prison.

More specifically it is simulating an idea - the idea of creating a place where a specific aspect of consciousness can be contained.

From the OP;

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

Such a simulation is created from the idea that a certain field of experience can be obtained - in the above case, purely evil expression.

From the OP;

• 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.

The present simulation we are experiencing was created from the idea that a consciousness which had been experiencing the practice of pure evil needed something which could allow it to rehabilitate from the affects of that experience.

From the OP;

• 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.

That is the idea behind this universe in relation to consciousness within it. The idea and purpose is what is being simulated.

How do we know that "consciousness" is real?

Because it acknowledges itself that way and is the only thing which can acknowledge itself. It is mindful rather than mindless and is also able to acknowledge things, such as this universe.

How do you deal with cognitive ERRORS?

Identify them as errors.

If the only thing that is really real is consciousness. Then, whatever something that is conscious is thinking about becomes magically real. Thoughts are magically real. What the thoughts magically produce are only SIMULATIONS ( and also, somehow real )

Why use that term 'magically real'? Is it to align such thinking with magicians and tricks? Or is it to try to grasp the nature of Consciousness in relation to things which are created through conscious process?

You are almost there in relation to grasping the nature of FSC (and all subsequent aspects of consciousness derived from that) however, through use of the word 'magic' you delegate this to the concept of magicians and their tricks, which effectively places a barrier to fuller comprehension...'magical thinking'.

It is in itself not a serious barrier mind you...but can act as a buffer against 'going there in your mind' in relation to comprehension.

The nature of our particular position within this universe is that we are deep within its process. We experience this density and work within its limitations.

Apart from conceptual imagery, (we understand instant manifestation as an idea) we have to work in an environment which ensures we work things out slowly and surely.

We have creative ideas. We can draw plans in our minds eyes regarding the formation of the idea. We have external things to which we can use to bring the internal idea into the external.

We have a form which is purpose built for this activity and are able to use what is available and manipulate that material in order to fashion even more implements in which to add to our creations.

Do we consider this to be 'magic'? No we do not. It is kind of 'magical' for sure. But because we have had to do the hard yards and actually make things from the resource of this planet, in a linear fashion, we don't view this process as being 'magical'.

Perhaps we should? Perhaps we could view this process in the framework of 'magical thinking and doing'?

But whatever. It is creative and shows the amazing ability of consciousness to have ideas which can be simulated (fashioned) using the materials available to us in order to do so.

The OP theory explains that those materials exist because of an idea which became a simulation which we call 'the universe'.

Blood sweat and tears are part of the recipe for creative manifestation at this depth within this universe. We are forced by the simulation itself to be creative or we will die earlier than necessary. We call this process 'survival' due to the nature of our environment which is dangerous in relation to biological life form.

It doesn't matter where consciousness finds itself in relation to simulated universes, the pattern remains the same. Ideas and creativity. What is created and why it is created.

This pattern is also ongoing in relation to the next step in this rehabilitation process, as per the OP theory point;

• 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.

The next step is a rather more interesting one by all accounts as it involves the 'magic' of instant manifestation where one is enabled (due to the nature of the simulation) to bring into existence purpose designed environments specific to requirements of the individual consciousness experience.

There is a lot of data available from those who share their experiences of this alternate reality (oft called 'the Astral Realm') and that data altogether gives one a good overall picture of what to expect in terms of thought and action.

Indeed, from that data I have deduced that even in our present situation our imagination is creating things within that realm. This is because the two simulations are closely related and the astral realm is part of this universe rather than something separate from it - another universe outside of this one.

The Astral Realm is a simulation within this simulation and is effectively produced within the mind of the Entity Gaia - although I say this only as a reference to our close relationship with her - it is just as much the combined product of all such entities throughout this universe, all of which are sourced with the one entity which originally was placed into this simulation and from that, diversified into the many - following the pattern initiated by FSC...as per the OP;

• 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.

If I dream of Santa.. that's real because I thought of it. But, Santa is a mere SIMULATION of a Santa.

Dreams are a feedback mechnism. Belief has a lot to do with everything. But just because you might believe something does not = that being the case in this - our particular universe. Santa (whatever his race is imagined to be) does not manifest in this universe but does in the Astral Realm, where any number of Santa's exist as simulated realities.

Dreams do serve a purpose in other ways within our universe. Scientists have often recalled dreams as having inspired them to produce things within this universe. Artists, also - and indeed most of us can say that dreams have inspired ideas which we have then made real.

Someone out there is magically thinking about simulations.

There is no 'someone out there' really. For all intent and purpose we are in the mind of FSC and we are all aspects of FSC involved in that experience, whatever the simulation. In that sense FS reality is 'out there' since we are aspects of FSC within its mind. But the normal connotations of separateness involved in 'out' and 'in' are illusion rather than factual. Consciousness is really an undivided thing which can only give itself the appearance of being separated through simulations.

The simulations are all connected. The may branch out like a fractal pattern, but they have only one source, and are not really separated from that source other than through perception - and that perception is illusion.

Any idea who?
Or is this a disembodied mind?

Why would we expect THAT?

This is why the idea of FSC is necessary. There HAS to be a cause otherwise 'everything came from nothing' which is illogical (magical thinking). Thus, 'why would we expect that?' is because it is the only logical answer to THIS experience of existence we are presently occupied within.

• 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.

All THINGS in the universe are simulated but us... ahhhh contradiction alert, friend.

Well friend, explain the contradiction. Are you saying that consciousness is also a *thing*?...

...Whereas I am saying consciousness is the reason for *things* and is not in itself a *thing* as it is able to exist without *things* as the fundamental default position.
All *things* derive from consciousness - from FSC, which has always existed and will always exist.

If I am consciousness, do I get to do magic too?
If not, why not?

You are always able to manifest creativity. How this is done is dependent on the particular simulation you are directly involved within. This one places limitation on us, as already explained further back in this post.

I'm thinking REAL hard about a million bucks, by the way.

Well you know what will be involved in making that thought a reality in this particular universe.

So, why pretend to know one or the other?
Isn't that a big honking waste of "simulated" time?

From your perspective/world view perhaps it is. Perhaps your time is best spent making that million bucks a reality.


But you will eventually die and that million bucks won't be any good to you then...so if you are fine in taking the gambit that when you die that is the end of experience for you as you will no longer exist, then - while that is illogical belief - it is your call. You get to make that call. That is your power.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 24 by William]



[center]
Where are the ponies?[/center]

I am simulating you.
You are simulating back.

Or something like that.

Not really.

Well, I really didn't have my hopes up that I understood your... "theology".
I thought we were just pretending?

And while we are at it.. can we have ponies?

You and I are consciousness within form. The form is simulated for the experience.
We are aspects of FSC

We are "aspects"?

The "form" or the FSC is simulating the universe ( but not us ) to experience the simulation?

I have NO idea what any of this really means.
We aren't a part of the universe, but we are, we aren't simulated beings, because we are conscious beings, we are WITHIN a "form" of some kind ( platonic? )

I couldn't be more confused if I tried.

It seems to rely on a definition of "reality" that escapes me right now... Reality is not real. Or at least, that's what I think you mean.

There is only "mind"... Or "minds"....
But if we bash our heads on a wall.. the "unreal" reality that is only simulated seems to simulate pain pretty well. It's almost as if the simulation was real, isn't it?

But it's not, is it?

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

Like when I pretend stuff?

This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.

Like when I pretend stuff on my couch, so that I don't have to leave the dominant reality I call "living room"?

Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children.

As long as we are being metaphorical.... How about this means pets and houseplants?
And outside, how about it means ponies?

I assure you that I have NO idea how your special kind of "magical thinking" is supposed to work. Magic doesn't make much sense to me, never has.

Magical Thinking is not specific to the OP theory because it explains the relationships as well as what caused the effect.

I think you said FSC made the universe happen.
It just "did" that. By what mechanism is FSC making everything?

How is that different from magic, precisely?

How is the FSC different from "God"?
How is FSC "simulating" us ( but not us ) different from the story in Genesis?

I have often wondered if magical thinking is involved in the belief that the Big Bang happened spontaneously for no reason and came from nothing and that all the stuff of the universe magically appeared from this nothing through an enormous energetic blast which also came from nothing.

Sounds to me like 'magic'.

Yeah, sure does when you put it that way.
But MAYBE, just MAYBE there was also a bit of "science" involved.

Is science magic to you, too?
What do actual scientists say about how the Big Bang came to BE?

Any ideas?
Are many of them cosmologists and theoretical physicists invoking magic as explanations do you think?

I might not have made my question very clear to you. I didn't ask what created the simulation.

Well be that as it may, unless you want to believe in magic, the notion of something which has a beginning but wasn't created is a special kind of magic. Clearly the universe has had a beginning.

You say "created" as if we knew that the universe was "created".
Do we know that?

And, no, I don't believe in "magic".
I also don't believe in the FSC, nor in it's capacity ( if it DID exist ) to "create" a universe by "thinking it all up" or whatever.

But thinking things up just by thinking them up seems pretty much like "magic" to me. If you can think of a better word, let me know.

If there is nothing at all before this Simulation, how can it be SIMILAR to something? We know that simulation means "pretense" or "fake", but at the root, it has "Similar".

What is this simulation similar TO?

A prison.

Oh my, what a bleak way of describing the universe. A prison. Lucky, lucky US, right?
And we are all just prisoners here.. Hotel California.... You can check out any time you like but you can NEVER leave.......

And how did the FSC "simulate" a prison if there weren't any prisons BEFORE the simulation you call the "universe"?

You said the FSC had to SIMULATE stuff in order to EXPERIENCE what it was. So, no simulation, no prisons to "simulate". I think the word simulate is synonymous with "Fake", right?... so where is the REAL REALLY REAL universe that this one is a FAKE one of?

What is the FSC using for it's EXAMPLE of a universe if no examples of a universe exists?

More specifically it is simulating an idea - the idea of creating a place where a specific aspect of consciousness can be contained.

The FSC isn't contained?
It had to dream stuff up so that it's ideas ( I guess the FSC is ONLY ideas ) could be constrained a bit?

How did the FSC constrain itself enough to simulate a constraint?
Was the FSC constrained somehow?

From the OP;

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

Are you saying that some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience loving expression too?

That's so weird.

It means that WHOEVER or WHATEVER this "FSC" is, they didn't KNOW anything about evil, or good, prisons, humans, or any kind of constraint at all BUT knew that they DIDN'T know.

If you don't know about love.. how can you simulate it?
If you never experienced constraints at all, how can you simulate constraints?

Don't we have to know about X in order to simulate X?

From the OP;

• 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.

So, OUR simulation wasn't the ONLY simulation?
There were simulations where goodness ruled the day?

We.. have a simulation that pretty much sucks?
Who's to blame for that?

Wait.... I know.. it's us, right?
So, now what.. the FSC tinkers with the simulation to get desired results?

The present simulation we are experiencing was created from the idea that a consciousness which had been experiencing the practice of pure evil needed something which could allow it to rehabilitate from the affects of that experience.

Oh, I see.. OUR simulation was INTENDED for the FSC to experience "pure evil".
It looks like from your point of view, the FSC got what it wanted. Our whole universe was simulated so the FSC "eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as it were"...

AND THEN, when that experiment is over, we need rehabilitation.
How horrible.

Good for IT or HIM.. or THEM... or HER.. whatever.
TOO TOO bad for US.

This simulation, according to you, SUCKS.
It's kind of a bleak view of reality, if you actually think that way.

Something tells me that you really don't think that way... just toying with the idea, right?

From the OP;

• 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.

So, this simulation WAS CREATED in such a way that there WOULD be evil, but not too much.. Sounds a bit more hopeful than I thought.

We are simulated to be in a "Goldilocks zone", morally speaking.

That is the idea behind this universe in relation to consciousness within it. The idea and purpose is what is being simulated.

Ideas in the universe are merely simulations too?
Im lost lost lost...simulatedly lost.

How do we know that "consciousness" is real?

Because it acknowledges itself that way and is the only thing which can acknowledge itself. It is mindful rather than mindless and is also able to acknowledge things, such as this universe.

I'd love a translation of that.
It is "mindless rather than mindless"

That's like saying an apple is "appleness rather than applelessness"

When it comes to apples and consciousness, "It is what it is".
So, how do we know "what it is" is real, or just a simulation?

You seem to say that apples are just simulations, but that what we describe as "consciousness" can not be a simulation. Your random ramblings reads like an interesting premise for a fantasy novel. Did you intend this to be more than that?

Humans have what we call "self-awareness". So, what if that was just a simulation of "self-awareness" like AI?

Could we not have SIMULATED self-awareness, too?
By magic or advanced tech?

How do you deal with cognitive ERRORS?

Identify them as errors.

So, this whole idea of your MIGHT be a big honking cognitive error. Any way at all for you to find out if it is or not?

Are we caring at all about the TRUTH of your theory?
Or are we finding a pleasant way to pass the time away, and dispensing with the truth altogether?

If the only thing that is really real is consciousness. Then, whatever something that is conscious is thinking about becomes magically real. Thoughts are magically real. What the thoughts magically produce are only SIMULATIONS ( and also, somehow real )

Why use that term 'magically real'? Is it to align such thinking with magicians and tricks? Or is it to try to grasp the nature of Consciousness in relation to things which are created through conscious process?

If things just pop out of thoughts and that's IT.. yeah, it's magic. You say that this reality isn't really real, but only a SIMULATION of what is real.. So, that's why I said this reality, according to you is "Magically real", but not really really real.

I don't know of a better term for your kind of reality than "Magical". I don't know of any other way of describing what you call "consciousness" as "thinking". Put them both together, and you have MAGICAL THINKING.

Think something up and kablooie... it happens.. but it's not real real, really. Not in the normal sense of the word "real".. so what KIND of reality is this "simulated" reality?

I call it "magical reality". You call it "simulation". Well, I'm saying that your simulation is a magical reality. Magically created, and only a simulation.

It's another KIND of pragmatic, prosaic, kinda boring "reality".
It's very much like a dream... like a Matrix....

Or in other words, "Purely imaginary".
Are ya thinking of writing a fantasy novel?

The only THINGS that I know happen by way of consciousness are THOUGHTS.
So, if we have to account all of the universe by THOUGHTS, those are pretty powerful THOUGHTS.

What would you describe the mechanism by which all of nature is produced from nothing BUT thoughts?

Thought=universe...
Is that what we usually call causation in the known universe?

Aren't there usually OTHER things between the cause "thought" and the effect "universe"?

You are almost there in relation to grasping the nature of FSC (and all subsequent aspects of consciousness derived from that) however, through use of the word 'magic' you delegate this to the concept of magicians and their tricks, which effectively places a barrier to fuller comprehension...'magical thinking'.

Look, if I really wanted to dispense with my incredulity, I can pretend anything and everything. Nothing at all wrong with my imagination. I'm sorry if you don't like the term "magical thinking" that I use to describe your "theory", but to me, it's the closest fit that I can think of.

I dream up a dream, and the things in the dreams aren't really real...
So, maybe a magical dream... or just "dream" is better.. or "Pure fantasy" another.

I'm not at all referring to REAL magicians who perform on stage, but the FICTIONAL magicians who go around saying "abracadabra" and have things appear for REAL out of thin air.

Kinda like the God of the Bible.. creating the whole universe from a word.... Nothing BUT a word... ( powerful word, don't you think? )

So, if a thought can produce an entire "simulated universe" what KIND of thought is that?

A powerful thought that makes things happen out of nothing?
What word would you use, if not "magical"?

It is in itself not a serious barrier mind you...but can act as a buffer against 'going there in your mind' in relation to comprehension.

Oh, I can and do pretend all the time.
So, now what.. don't ask?

This is like a fantasy story?
I'm not supposed to fret about any narrative holes, but just "go with it"?

Do you know what I often do after I finished debating rationally all day?
Sometimes, I curl up in bed with a magical tale.. full of wizards, magical swords, and gorgeous gals in distress... I'm kindof a kid that way.

In here, though, I usually use my "left brain", or my more rational side.
Is all of this a "right brain" kind of thing?

I hate not getting the joke.
You SEEM very serious.....

The nature of our particular position within this universe is that we are deep within its process. We experience this density and work within its limitations.

Yeah, we are and we aren't a part of the simulation.. Somehow.
But that's not magic.

Maybe "miracle" ?

Apart from conceptual imagery, (we understand instant manifestation as an idea) we have to work in an environment which ensures we work things out slowly and surely.

Sometimes, we pretend quickly, and sometimes, slowly.
Is that what we are doing?

Playing "pretend"?

We have creative ideas.

Well, in this case, the FSC is your creative idea.

Do we consider this to be 'magic'? No we do not.

Try using the word "I" here.. because I still consider that you are describing "magical thinking". You do not. The idea that you are CREATING depends almost entirely on what I would call magical thinking. Think something, and it happens. Well, maybe that kind of thing happens in DREAMS... but after I dream, I tend to wake up. Whatever happened in the dream.. isn't real AT ALL.

I can't really fly by flapping my wings. And I don't happen to be the most handsome man on the planet. ( second in line will just have to do )

A lot of people think that way... Some send to me their "intentions" in the hope that these intentions will "manifest" in my "reality". Yeah, I get talked to that way. I call that "magical thinking" too.

I try to engage people on a "what are your beliefs" level, so many are quite happy to oblige. I sometimes get what I ask for.. so I created that "reality".

It's like magic !!

It is kind of 'magical' for sure.

So, it's not magical but it is.
Oh boy.

But because we have had to do the hard yards and actually make things from the resource of this planet, in a linear fashion, we don't view this process as being 'magical'.

So, it's magical and it's not.
Oh boy oh boy.

Perhaps we should? Perhaps we could view this process in the framework of 'magical thinking and doing'?

Yep, that's what I think you are describing... "magic thought" fits.

But whatever. It is creative and shows the amazing ability of consciousness to have ideas which can be simulated (fashioned) using the materials available to us in order to do so.

Aren't you just acknowledging that humans are creative and do stuff?

The OP theory explains that those materials exist because of an idea which became a simulation which we call 'the universe'.

You have an idea that there is a "FSC" out there .. who dreamed up the universe.
Hindus have had that idea a long, long time already.

Some of them might agree with you.
I don't.

Blood sweat and tears are part of the recipe for creative manifestation at this depth within this universe.

Ahhh forget that gloominess.. creativity is a lot of FUN.

I'm quite creative in my way.. a whole LOT of it is intended for FUN.. and to make people LAUGH. I have fun creating and I get laughs by what I create, so I have a bit of a clue as to how to be creative without all the blood, all the sweat and all those tears. GEE... lighten UP a bit!

You forgot the all important word "SIMULATED" ... according to your theory, the universe is just a simulation. It's not "real".

But for all intents and purposes, it's real enough to all of us.

[center]If it IS nothing but a simulation, it feels real
If it ISN'T a simulation, it feels just as real.[/center]

We are forced by the simulation itself to be creative or we will die earlier than necessary. We call this process 'survival' due to the nature of our environment which is dangerous in relation to biological life form.

You're going to drive me to drink... ( which is a bit of fun )

Yeah, life happens.
Whataryagonnado?

What you just described ( even if it were true ) doesn't at all depend on the universe being a simulation. Take that out of the equation, and all you are talking about IS the universe.

The "simulation" part is completely useless.
What's it good for?

It doesn't matter where consciousness finds itself in relation to simulated universes, the pattern remains the same. Ideas and creativity. What is created and why it is created.

So, it doesn't matter if someone thinks the universe is simulated or not, we are stuck here in it, with NO idea if it's a simulation or not.

I don't at all see any advantage to your FSC theory.
And in any case, I don't see any difference between FSC and "God".

• 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.

Other simulated universes?
I thought you were getting to that.

So, not only do we have to pretend that there is ONE simulation, but many others, too. If this simulation is all gloom and doom, I feel cheated.

The next step is a rather more interesting one by all accounts as it involves the 'magic' of instant manifestation where one is enabled (due to the nature of the simulation) to bring into existence purpose designed environments specific to requirements of the individual consciousness experience.

Now, you are adopting the word "magic".

"Instant manifestation" IS another way of describing magic, isn't it?
Magical thinking, my friend.

That's magic.

"Abracadabra" explains all of that.
Quite the easy theory.

Now why oh why didn't all the scientists every think of that?
Why oh why do all fantasy fiction writers think up some "Deus ex machina"
when they get in a plot jam?

That's why a lot of us atheists really don't like the "Godditit" explanation.. it's ad hoc, and useless as an explanation. So is magic, which is another "Deus ex machina"

There is a lot of data available from those who share their experiences of this alternate reality (oft called 'the Astral Realm') and that data altogether gives one a good overall picture of what to expect in terms of thought and action.

"We have astral realms" now.

• 1. So, the universe is a simulation.
  2. There are many if not countless such simulations.
  3. There are simulations where people go to called the "Astral Realms" and compare notes when they come back.
  4. Those are more reliable simulations that ordinary simulations because.... well because.

Indeed, from that data I have deduced that even in our present situation our imagination is creating things within that realm.

That "data".
You call tall tales about alternate reality "data"?

Not only are there all kinds of weird and wonderful simulations, but we can go there and create whatever we like. Mountains of ice cream... monkberry moon delights.

Ahhh such a nice dream.
Can we have the ponies now?

This is because the two simulations are closely related and the astral realm is part of this universe rather than something separate from it - another universe outside of this one.

Oh, we can have the ponies because the "Astral Realm ( S ) " is CLOSELY related to this simulation. The close we get to another simulation, the more we get to do magic.

I've read quite a few fantasy books like that.. sci-fi books too.
Let me know if you want a reading list.

But do continue... I love to cooperate with a creative person..
It's just not my thing when I am in here....

I forgot we were "randomly rambling" ...

I'm using my "rational mind"

You aren't.
Got it.

But honestly, can we have the ponies?

[Divine Insight]

Shouldn't we be able to put this who simulation hypothesis to rest by simply observing how physics already explains the universe without the need for there to be anything "simulating" it?

For example, physics has already explained how the physical universe behaves by just giving consistent natural properties to things like fermions and bosons. Once you have that there is no need to further invent the idea of a mind or computer than "simulates" how they behave. It's already taken care of by their natural consistent properties. No simulation required.

Therefore modern physics has already explained how the universe works without any need to introduce a hypothesis of the universe being stimulated. There is no need for it to be simulated when the constituents that make it up already fully explain it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by Divine Insight]




[center]
Blastcat got himself fixated on magic ponies:
Part One: Don't hurt Blastcat's feelings, ok?[/center]

Shouldn't we be able to put this who simulation hypothesis to rest by simply observing how physics already explains the universe without the need for there to be anything "simulating" it?

Yeah, but then, no magic ponies.
So, there's a need.

For example, physics has already explained how the physical universe behaves by just giving consistent natural properties to things like fermions and bosons. Once you have that there is no need to further invent the idea of a mind or computer than "simulates" how they behave. It's already taken care of by their natural consistent properties. No simulation required.

Ok ... ok....

BUT, it's not that I really require magic ponies.. But.. I'd like a couple.
Especially the purple and yellow ones.

And a mountain of ice cream wouldn't be so bad, either, come to think.

Therefore modern physics has already explained how the universe works without any need to introduce a hypothesis of the universe being stimulated. There is no need for it to be simulated when the constituents that make it up already fully explain it.

I think it's a bit exaggerated to say that the clever fellers have figured exactly HOW the universe got itself started. It MIGHT have been magic ponies, you know.

Hey.. it's at least POSSIBLE, isn't it?

[Divine Insight]

Ok ... ok....

BUT, it's not that I really require magic ponies.. But.. I'd like a couple.
Especially the purple and yellow ones.

And a mountain of ice cream wouldn't be so bad, either, come to think.

[center]



Fear not for the magic equine
they freely roam in herds
beneath the quantum borderline
beyond the reach of nerds

Their reality is fleeting
in states of quantum spin
they often get entangled
much to their chagrin

Spooky action-at-a-distance!
a physicist once yelled
a sight that's hard to fathom
until it's been beheld

Ponies trotting through the foam
in the substrate of existence
and though we try to rule them out
they keep their strange persistence

On mountains made of ice cream
in the valley of the dead
a pony rears upon hind legs
to lift her ghostly head

And with a thought of consciousness
to match the topic of this thread
She neigh's a sigh of quantum foam
and put's this ode to bed[/center]

[William]

I couldn't be more confused if I tried.

Well after the ponies and the above comment, I haven't made any effort to read the rest of you post Blastcat.

Perhaps you are bored?

[William]

Can't argue against the theory so what are folks to do? Resort to stupidity.
Behold! The Prison mentality!


Shackled minds.