Riz Virk, The Simulation Hypothesis Beyond Materialism |442|

[Typoz]

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.

The supernatural is independent of theism/atheism. In some cases religious beief discards or forbids the supernatural.

 

[Michael Patterson]

I think what folks are doing in cases such as this is speaking metaphorically about that which words cannot do justice.

The they are still stuck with the problem of a metaphor without meaning. What is being simulated? The notion that reality is a simulation is non-sensical.

 

[Michael Patterson]

A simulation of a reality which appears fundamental but is not. Perhaps for the purposes of learning, experience, and growth. It doesn’t necessarily have to mean that this “simulation” is perfectly mocking a deeper, more fundamental reality. But then again, perhaps it IS. “Simulation” is probably the best word we could muster to describe something like this. That’s my current opinion though, idk.

The problem is that what seems to be meant is that what we call reality kinda isn't. But all that means is that what we think of as reality isn't - so the 'simulation' can only be what we imagine or think - and this is the opposite of what has been asserted.

Reality is what ever it is and what ever we imagine it is cannot but be a simulation - because we cannot know what it is. We can only know that which can experience and imagine - and we can't know that that is all there is.

We can say that what we think is real is a simulation of reality - and probably a pretty crap one at that. We can't know it is a good one and we should adopt a modest posture here in any case.

 

[Michael Patterson]

how do you avoid infinite regress? Turtles all the way down

You don't - because we can't. We can be grateful there is no evidence they are TMNTs. That would open up horrible metaphysical headaches.

 

[Chester Hunter]

You don't - because we can't. We can be grateful there is no evidence they are TMNTs. That would open up horrible metaphysical headaches.

What is a TMNT? You mean Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

 

[Wormwood]

The problem is that what seems to be meant is that what we call reality kinda isn't. But all that means is that what we think of as reality isn't - so the 'simulation' can only be what we imagine or think - and this is the opposite of what has been asserted.

Reality is what ever it is and what ever we imagine it is cannot but be a simulation - because we cannot know what it is. We can only know that which can experience and imagine - and we can't know that that is all there is.

We can say that what we think is real is a simulation of reality - and probably a pretty crap one at that. We can't know it is a good one and we should adopt a modest posture here in any case.

To me, “simulation theory” is really another word for “Idealism.” To me they are interchangeable. I guess since I tend to be an idealist more than anything, and since I largely equate the two, I tend to be sympathetic towards the simulation idea.

Perhaps I’m in error in equating the two. But that’s how I internalize it. To me, Idealism, and the particular brand of simulation I favor (the sort that doesn’t involve literal computers) both say that “consciousness is all that there is.”

 

[David Bailey]

To me, “simulation theory” is really another word for “Idealism.” To me they are interchangeable. I guess since I tend to be an idealist more than anything, and since I largely equate the two, I tend to be sympathetic towards the simulation idea.

Perhaps I’m in error in equating the two. But that’s how I internalize it. To me, Idealism, and the particular brand of simulation I favor (the sort that doesn’t involve literal computers) both say that “consciousness is all that there is.”

I basically agree, but of course the simulation hypothesis does encompass the rather idiotic idea that we are simulated by an actual digital computer! One reason this is daft is that it doesn't even address the Hard Problem.

I have come to see Riz's idea as another way to wean some people (including one or two physicists) out of the materialist camp. It also might provide some new ways to looks for evidence for Idealism - I'm not keen on Bernado's endless metaphors!

For example, unless we assume that the conscious entities responsible for this reality have infinite powers (as you may remember, I have come to suspect the idea of an infinitely powerful/wise/intelligent entity), there must be the chance that they can get overloaded and maybe drop data that should have been processed. Thus I wonder if there might be quantum experiments explicitly designed to try to befuddle or overload the simulation process? Maybe quantum computers will hit this barrier?

David

 

[David Bailey]

I am now getting towards the end of Riz's book, and it gets more fascinating because Riz sees enormous parallels between certain spiritual phenomena and corresponding events in computer games, if you assume that rel life is a simulation of some sort.

For example, games often involve a number of tasks and you are ranked at the end if you perform these successfully, and often shown a replay of the key points in your performance - I hardly need to point out the comparison with the life review which often features in NDE's, and presumably figures in the actual death experience!

Of course, I suppose it could be argued, that in order to make role playing games interesting, they need a certain moral structure (maybe even shooting games) and so resemble real life, but I don't find that idea very convincing!

David

 

[David Bailey]

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 have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying, but the best suggestion is to read Riz's book, which I am doing now.

I think perhaps it is helpful to remember John Searle's argument against AI, known as the 'Chinese Room' argument. This showed that if a computer running AI computer proceeds in tiny logical steps - as it surely must - then it could consist of a large number of humans following intricate coding manipulations equivalent to a computer. Thus if a machine could understand Chinese, then the equivalent computer made of human beings would do so also (at a vastly slower pace). Searle used this to try to debunk AI, and I pretty much assume that AI will never 'think' like a human, even remotely.

I suppose this construct shows that human beings can simulate something else - just as a computer can. More generally, conscious entities can simulate something. The simulation we are talking about, can only be done by conscious entities of some sort - so we are really talking about Idealism.

I can assure you, I am not thinking like a materialist, and I am pretty sure Riz isn't either.

David

 

[Michael Patterson]

To me, “simulation theory” is really another word for “Idealism.” To me they are interchangeable. I guess since I tend to be an idealist more than anything, and since I largely equate the two, I tend to be sympathetic towards the simulation idea.

Perhaps I’m in error in equating the two. But that’s how I internalize it. To me, Idealism, and the particular brand of simulation I favor (the sort that doesn’t involve literal computers) both say that “consciousness is all that there is.”

Okay. I get that. But I am picky and pedantic. For me 'simulation' is either redundant or an error. There is a mystical thought that says the centre is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere - its meant to bash your head around. And the problem we have with our experience of materialistic reality it that it is all mediated via the brain and nervous system. We don't actually know what is real.

So 'simulation' might be a useful word to convey some sense of this uncertainty. However simulation refers to a representation of a thing known. In fact we are better off talking about a 'representation theory' - as in we can only ever encounter presentations of the real.

Pedantry may seem petty a times. But not always.

 

[Silence]

Of course, I suppose it could be argued, that in order to make role playing games interesting, they need a certain moral structure (maybe even shooting games) and so resemble real life, but I don't find that idea very convincing!

Its a basic concept for most commercially viable digital gaming platforms.

https://www.gamedesigning.org/gaming/great-games/

 

[David Bailey]

So 'simulation' might be a useful word to convey some sense of this uncertainty. However simulation refers to a representation of a thing known. In fact we are better off talking about a 'representation theory' - as in we can only ever encounter presentations of the real.

Well the trouble with that, is that lots of people don't believe in Idealism because they see no obvious evidence. Heck, none of us should believe it 100%, otherwise we aren't sceptics! Finding a new angle to search for evidence really it important.

David

 

[lonevoice]

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?

I think this planet must be one of the most difficult habitats in the universe! Thanks for your reply, Alex

 

[Chester Hunter]

Okay. I get that. But I am picky and pedantic. For me 'simulation' is either redundant or an error. There is a mystical thought that says the centre is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere - its meant to bash your head around. And the problem we have with our experience of materialistic reality it that it is all mediated via the brain and nervous system. We don't actually know what is real.

So 'simulation' might be a useful word to convey some sense of this uncertainty. However simulation refers to a representation of a thing known. In fact we are better off talking about a 'representation theory' - as in we can only ever encounter presentations of the real.

Pedantry may seem petty a times. But not always.

"From 'the One' spring the many"... because within all possibility, the many can arise from "the One." Does it hurt to be open-minded to the possibility that within the set of infinite possibilities, this occurred? The point is, if it is possible, why not try the assumption on just like you might try on a new diet to see if it works? Do you have to know exactly how or why the diet works for it to work?

Do you have to know exactly how or why the diet works for you to try it if you really want to lose weight? I know there are some folks who absolutely do and those are, for me, the hold-outs to materialism as a world view.

Is it possible that once we have many with conscious agency, that, over time, ways can be developed to take the reality of movement (change over time) where the fact there be "many" implies 3 dimensions? So don't we have the basic framework that underpins our physical experience from just this first fruition within all possibility?

 

[Wormwood]

Okay. I get that. But I am picky and pedantic. For me 'simulation' is either redundant or an error. There is a mystical thought that says the centre is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere - its meant to bash your head around. And the problem we have with our experience of materialistic reality it that it is all mediated via the brain and nervous system. We don't actually know what is real.

So 'simulation' might be a useful word to convey some sense of this uncertainty. However simulation refers to a representation of a thing known. In fact we are better off talking about a 'representation theory' - as in we can only ever encounter presentations of the real.

Pedantry may seem petty a times. But not always.

I get ya. Though I’m not sure how much that our experience is actually mediated through the brain and nervous system. Clearly there’s some sort
of important relationship between our consciousness and our nervous system. But based on NDEs and some good channeled/medium info, it seems that we may be virtually the same identify and roughly of the same consciousness after death with some basic alterations.

But I think ultimately we are talking about word definitions and subjective understandings of definitions and meanings about words like “simulation” all while probably holding the same rough idea in our heads. I think the differences, as often happens in conversation, might be more related to differences in word interpretation rather than differences in reality interpretation.

 

[Chester Hunter]

I think the differences, as often happens in conversation, might be more related to differences in word interpretation rather than differences in reality interpretation.

Bingo!

 

[Baccarat]

How can we be conscious after death when we our energy is no longer serving our 5 senses?

 

[David Bailey]

How can we be conscious after death when we our energy is no longer serving our 5 senses?

Well imagine you are playing an immersive computer game, and someone turns the power off. There is probably a short period of confusion, and then you take off the goggles, or whatever and start interacting with the real world.

David

 

[Typoz]

How can we be conscious after death when we our energy is no longer serving our 5 senses?

That's very much like asking how we can have any thought, right here, right now, which isn't driven by the immediate demands of our body. Or similarly, how can we meditate and lose awareness of our body and environment. Does our consciousness cease to exist in these cases?

 

[Chester Hunter]

How can we be conscious after death when we our energy is no longer serving our 5 senses?

Some of us are able to perceive that which is independent of the senses... frankly, I would think, all of us but I can't speak for everyone else.