Riz Virk, The Simulation Hypothesis Beyond Materialism |442|

#81
"The truth is, you don't struggle with depression, you struggle with the reality we live in."
I don't struggle with depression, although I often feel frustrated with the current reality.

I don't know if the doctors can help with your depression, but I wouldn't be inclined to feel bad but not seek out help because you feel there is a reason to feel depressed. Feel free to chat with me about your problem by PM if you think it might help (but remember, I'm not trained in such things one bit).

David
 
#82
Can someone pls point me to the part of the interview where the concept of augmented_________________ came up? I have listened twice and missed it both times. Merci buckets!
I'd recommend that you obtain the Kindle book, which is very cheap, and then you can pinpoint questions like that.

David
 
#83
I'd like to take this idea of short-circuiting simulations so that they only produce the answers that will be consciously observed a little further.

If we imagine the simulator running 300 years ago (say), maybe it actually simulated atoms as small hard balls, as they were originally conceived. This would do, until science came up with evidence that contradicted that idea - the existence of electrons, say.

We normally think of what happened next as being that science came up with a more complicated (and correct) model for an atom with a positively charged nucleus surrounded by a swarm of negatively charged electrons.

However, you could imagine this event as being when the simulators became aware that the simpler model of atoms couldn't work, so they invented a new theory that only became true in the sense that at some point the simulator had to take on board that more complex model and work considerably harder!

If simulations work in the second way, then whatever is doing the simulation has to work harder and harder as scientists invent more ideas!

Could we end up overloading the simulator? I suspect not because a clever simulator could still employ the simpler calculation except in cases where it needed the better model.

However, possibly a quantum computer - if ever a reasonable scale one is produced - might break the simulator, because there you have many branches of the wave function all interacting in parallel! N q-bits would generate 2^N parallel calculations as I understand the phenomenon.

(I am still not through Riz's book, so apologies if those ideas are already in his book.)

David
 
#84
I don't struggle with depression, although I often feel frustrated with the current reality.

I don't know if the doctors can help with your depression, but I wouldn't be inclined to feel bad but not seek out help because you feel there is a reason to feel depressed. Feel free to chat with me about your problem by PM if you think it might help (but remember, I'm not trained in such things one bit).

David
Hi David, I simply quoted a quote attributed to Keanu Reeves. I am perhaps the happiest I have been my entire life these days. But, I do appreciate the offer... you have a true, genuine good heart (noticed long ago by the way). :)
 
#85
As I have said, I am reading Riz's book "The Simulation Hypothesis", and I am starting to see why Alex interviewed him - because I increasingly think he may be on to something - QM and Relativity do seem well explained by this hypothesis.

I think the simulation is ultimately being done by some form of consciousness, because as I pointed out, the base reality certainly can't be another version of our universe. There is still another section about religious/mystical view points , so I have high hopes that this will live up to the rest of the book - I guess he would not have added that section if he didn't want to say something interesting.

I mean, the trouble with what I might call the traditional simulation hypothesis, is that it doesn't really solve anything - because the race that is simulating our reality would be just as hard to explain, and there would be no resolution of the Hard Problem. It just seems like a techie's wet dream!

However, once you see this idea from a broader perspective, it starts to seem like part of the Big Picture.

I have long thought that the fact that humans can be captivated by stories they know to be false (commonly known as novels or films) is telling us something about our consciousness - it can be poured into realities and then extracted when the novel or film ends. Some people become so captivated that they study Shakespeare (say) all their lives!

David
 
#87
As I have said, I am reading Riz's book "The Simulation Hypothesis", and I am starting to see why Alex interviewed him - because I increasingly think he may be on to something - QM and Relativity do seem well explained by this hypothesis.

I think the simulation is ultimately being done by some form of consciousness, because as I pointed out, the base reality certainly can't be another version of our universe. There is still another section about religious/mystical view points , so I have high hopes that this will live up to the rest of the book - I guess he would not have added that section if he didn't want to say something interesting.

I mean, the trouble with what I might call the traditional simulation hypothesis, is that it doesn't really solve anything - because the race that is simulating our reality would be just as hard to explain, and there would be no resolution of the Hard Problem. It just seems like a techie's wet dream!

However, once you see this idea from a broader perspective, it starts to seem like part of the Big Picture.

I have long thought that the fact that humans can be captivated by stories they know to be false (commonly known as novels or films) is telling us something about our consciousness - it can be poured into realities and then extracted when the novel or film ends. Some people become so captivated that they study Shakespeare (say) all their lives!

David
From my view I do not see these stories as false but creative manifestations or incarnations of an archetypal source which animates the natural world but exists out side of space and time. So in a sense these stories are more real than mere facts just not literal. Michael Mead (mythologist) refer to stories as store houses (of psychic energy and information)
 
#88
this is the conclusion I came to as well... and I don't think it's has to be an all-or-nothing proposition. that's why I tended to focus on augmented Consciousness and augmented reality.
this is the conclusion I came to as well... and I don't think it's has to be an all-or-nothing proposition. that's why I tended to focus on augmented Consciousness and augmented reality.
There you go again! I knew somehow you were planning to us this phrase quite a bit, and I implore you to tell me what you mean by it, for example in this post. Merci!
 
#89
Hey Alex

Exactly why is this a 'simulation hypnosis'? Simulation of what? There is that fundamental metaphysical notion that in reality the centre is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere. We can create a galaxy in a hard drive. Seriously? We have to stop thinking like materialists. We get sucked into this nonsense all the time. Can we please move on?
I think what folks are doing in cases such as this is speaking metaphorically about that which words cannot do justice.
 
#91
Stimulation sounds so depressing though
Initially I had a similar reaction.

However first of all, simulation doesn't get rid of the Hard Problem, all it does is move that problem to reality behind the simulation. Thus if you play a computer game - maybe with a VR helmet - what you are watching is simulated, but you are still feeling real emotions, and if you are interacting with other real characters, that is still a real person to real person interaction.

As far as I can see, we are really talking about Idealism by a different name. However what is interesting is thr strong hints that this may tie in with actual physics issues.

David
 
#92
“Simulation” doesn’t mean “less real.” Experience is real, and it’s consequences are just as valid. Experience might be the only thing that’s “real.” Simulation to me only means that the medium being used to obtain these experiences by us currently isn’t fundamental. If anything (at least to me) this thought is comforting as it renders death even more meaningless. But it really depends on why a particular individual would find it depressing. The only thing depressing to me is physicalism.
 
Last edited:
#93
“Simulation” doesn’t mean “less real.” Experience is real, and it’s consequences are just as valid. Experience might be the only thing that’s “real.” Simulation to me only means that the medium being used to obtain these experiences by us currently isn’t fundamental. If anything (at least to me) this thought is comforting as it renders death even more meaningless. But it really depends on why a particular individual would find it depressing. The only thing depressing to me is physicalism.
This is a brilliant point and I had to highlight it as Thanks is not enough...

I had the same exact sense of "comforting" for the exact and quite obvious reason.

"Death" is an illusion. "Death" frees one of the "'one life' ego."

The challenge (and opportunity) is to free oneself of the "lower egoic" traits that might have taken hold in the (presumed) soul. I am quite certain I have many.

Regarding physicalism, the good in it for me is "the intensity." The bad in it for me is that it can be too intense at times.
 

Alex

Administrator
#94
There you go again! I knew somehow you were planning to us this phrase quite a bit, and I implore you to tell me what you mean by it, for example in this post. Merci!
I'm thinking of the Jacques Vallee a story that Riz retells in this interview as a jumping off point. so we have many accounts of people who have encountered Consciousness bending ET technology. in some instances they seem to have mastered some aspects of it at a technological level such as screen memory and telepathy. many of the account seemed very Star Trek ish but nonetheless "true ". I mean, people do come back with their clothes mixed matched with others who both remember being on the ship. to me, this seems to point to some kind of "augmented consciousness" thing. add to this the fact that we're playing around with chips that will be implanted into humans in order to give them enhanced abilities and you have to wonder how far Advanced some of these ET consciousness Technologies are... maybe they're just a little bit over the horizon.

but we also have accounts of ET moving through walls and popping in and out of this dimension of reality. I can't totally wrap my mind around this but it would seem to fall into this augmented reality kind of thing.

What do you think?
 
B

Baccarat

#95
This is a brilliant point and I had to highlight it as Thanks is not enough...

I had the same exact sense of "comforting" for the exact and quite obvious reason.

"Death" is an illusion. "Death" frees one of the "'one life' ego."

The challenge (and opportunity) is to free oneself of the "lower egoic" traits that might have taken hold in the (presumed) soul. I am quite certain I have many.

Regarding physicalism, the good in it for me is "the intensity." The bad in it for me is that it can be too intense at times.
Whats the egoic traits made up of? Doesn't the simulation hypothesis claim code is found in the fabric of our universe?
 
B

Baccarat

#96
So my rationalism has slowly come back for balance. I don't think the data shows an afterlife. All it shows is the process of dying is not instant or sudden. It alot of cases its gradual and that seeing Jesus or Bhudda is just subconscious cultural imprinting. It's essentially your body/energy/ego trying to understand my the electrical input is fading and your ego holding on to life because it fears "death" think about it if energy leave the body it's not working through the bodily 5 senses anymore so how can one experience a human experience in the afterlife? It would be a totally different experience as they energy is not confined to the human body and its 5 senses and illusionary thoughts
 
#97
See, for me, I don't need data. Because even data can be misinterpreted. I am happy to hold the "belief" knowing it is simply an assumption. The thing is, what does holding this belief do to and for me as to how I impact the lives of others and my own? That is what (IMO) should be assessed if one wishes for a better world.

If there is an afterlife, then there is - woohoo. If there isn't, what does it matter anyway?

Well, it might matter to others that my choice to "believe" there is also happens to impact the way my actions and words impact their life experience. That is far more the point IMO than arguing about what is needed for someone's "proof."

If someone chooses that they need "proof" of an afterlife to consider such worthy of their belief, what can be wrong with that? Nada. Free will, baby! Life is just animation unless conscious agents have free will, even if there's a gamescape to play games within.

I happen to see ours as a multi-turn, multi-level game where the player is playing at multi-levels simultaneously. A pretty cool concept IMO. I also think the game is not about "ethics" but "continuance of life where life is rated by the degree of freedom one maintains in their various life experiences. Ethics might end up being a requirement for maintaining each individual's degree of experience of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The ego, as some define, implies the concept of self (individuation) and at all levels where such an experiential possibility can exist. When i use the term, lower ego, I use it to mean the "identity" I perceive about myself based on this one life which is anchored in physicality. Perhaps is is the lowest form of ego.
 
Last edited:
B

Baccarat

#98
See, for me, I don't need data. Because even data can be misinterpreted. I am happy to hold the "belief" knowing it is simply an assumption. The thing is, what does holding this belief do to and for me as to how I impact the lives of others and my own? That is what (IMO) should be assessed if one wishes for a better world.

If there is an afterlife, then there is - woohoo. If there isn't, what does it matter anyway?

Well, it might matter to others that my choice to "believe" there is happens to impact the way my actions and words impact their life experience. That is far more the point IMO than arguing about what is needed for someone's "proof."

If someone chooses that they need "proof" of an afterlife to consider such worthy of their belief, what can be wrong with that? Nada. Free will, baby! Life is just animation unless conscious agents have free will, even if there's a gamescape to play games within.

I happen to see ours as a multi-turn, multi-level game where the player is playing at multi-levels simultaneously. A pretty cool concept IMO. I also think the game is not about "ethics" but "continuance of life where life is rated by the degree of freedom one maintains in their various life experiences. Ethics might end up being a requirement for maintaining each individual's degree of experience of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The ego, as some define, implies the concept of self (individuation) and at all levels where such an experiential possibility can exist. When i use the term, lower ego, I use it to mean the "identity" I perceive about myself based on this one life which is anchored in physicality. Perhaps is is the lowest form of ego.
I share similar sentiments if there is an afterlife yay of not.... yay

I was taken aback by how many different sects of atheism there is in Indian, Asian and even native American cultures. I was reading one thread on reddit about native American atheism and one poster wrote originally native Americans were atheist but changed over time due to warring tribes imposing their beliefs of God, God's, nature spirits, deities, most tribes have different and overlapping beliefs. And yes there were native tribes that were atheist! Same for many tribes in Asia and India!
We as Americans only get to extrapolate the popular sects and from Eastern Religions etc. It's also a myth that humans are hard wired to belief in the super natural as their are a bunch of atheistic texts that pre date some religious philosophies.
 
Top