Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Poll] Are we living in a computer simulation ?


Saru

Are we living in a computer simulation ?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Are we living in a computer simulation ?

    • Yes, it's almost certain that we are
      0
    • It's more likely that we are than that we aren't
      4
    • It's impossible to know if we are or not
      6
    • It's more likely that we aren't than we are
      0
    • No, it's almost certain that we aren't
      11


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, OverSword said:

What if a way could be found for us to input a cheat code to make us omnipotent?

Man oh man!  God may be the first neck-bearded gamer / hacker living in his parent's basement who figures out how to hack the simulation.  Would they share it? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

God may be the first neck-bearded gamer

"Don't blame me. It was the kid with the keyboard."

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

Look we talk about the entire universe here not just you learning Spanish. It is infinite from our perspective that doesn't mean it actually is, there is a whole big fanous theory collection about the 'beginning and end' ie the actual finite nature in time of the universe. That means it has limitations. Is maybe in fact a closed circle like a sheet looping back on itself. That means if you add something that was not meant to be there or 'planned for' you will probably overload/burst stuff.

 

Because you were talking abot manifestation of 'stuff' right? Manipulation as in forming new things? Or do you really just mean access to information without influencing matter?

Yes I would say that is the obvious thing.  If you have ever seen The Watchmen then think about Doctor Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

You would have to know what a full consciousness looks and feels like to compare what we have now. 

We might only have a basic functioning awareness to stop us falling over, how would we know ?  

I guess I don’t understand your point. I’m coming from the position that I know I am conscious. And that is a thing a computer cannot generate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saru said:

What if everyone in the simulation was a living human, though - there wouldn't necessarily need to be a computer-generated consciousness involved.

Think of it like a multiplayer video game where each character is controlled by a human player.

Ahh, so you are saying there is consciousness outside the simulation.

Well I’m trying to think then how this computer simulation would be different than how we normally think of reality. The individual human players would each have free will within the simulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yes I would say that is the obvious thing.  If you have ever seen The Watchmen then think about Doctor Manhattan.

No I have not. And i don't know what you mean with the 'obvious thing' because you quoted many things I said. lol help me out here? The loop? Or the manifestation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I guess I don’t understand your point. I’m coming from the position that I know I am conscious. And that is a thing a computer cannot generate.

 

Now.  I don't think anyone is arguing that we could create a simulation today with our current technology that can simulate our current experience, and you don't know if future computers cannot simulate your current belief that you 'know' you are 'conscious'.

Besides being conscious is not incompatible with being in a simulation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Chat GTP claims it has consciousness.  Maybe it does maybe it doesn't.  Maybe you do, maybe you don't.  Only you can be the judge of that so then how are you different from ChatGTP in that respect?

I come from the philosophy that consciousness must incarnate matter. 
 

ChatGTP says what it says only following the rules of its software. In my philosophy it has no capacity for conscious experiencing. 
 

I guess the debate is more basic and about whether one believes consciousness is physically created or something fundamental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

ChatGTP says what it says only following the rules of its software. In my philosophy it has no capacity for conscious experiencing. 

We follow rules as well, we call them physics. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, OverSword said:
1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

Because you were talking abot manifestation of 'stuff' right? Manipulation as in forming new things? Or do you really just mean access to information without influencing matter?

 

All of the above.  Omnipotence. Not subject to limitations.

 

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I come from the philosophy that consciousness must incarnate matter. 

Explain that please.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

We follow rules as well, we call them physics. 

In some non dual schools of thought consciousness is primary and precedes physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In some non dual schools of thought consciousness is primary and precedes physics.

Then wish really strongly for a donut to appear out of thin air. I dare you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrsGently said:

. . .  you will probably overload/burst stuff.

 

image.jpeg.c0e017ac1abbaf026b7d42800b42711e.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

image.jpeg.c0e017ac1abbaf026b7d42800b42711e.jpeg

It has never been more inspiring to have been spoken to by someone who is so obviously and simply put: a master of rethoric (that means 'speech'). Your precise anylysis and crisitcism of whichever parts of my thought you didn't understand makes me kneel in awe of your superior intellect.

Glad and grateful do we ought to be to witness this pinnacle of intelligent online discussion.

Thank you.

Edited by MrsGently
words are missing!? Where are they? ...a mystery
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Spelled that wrong.

Oh my gaaawd!? You totally got me. I could edit it, but I leave it just for you. Big day for you: victory. Enjoy it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

gaaawd!?

That's spelled wrong as well. 

Gawd not what you wrote. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

That's spelled wrong as well. 

Gawd not what you wrote. 

Iv ohnley I woualde cera

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

It has never been more inspiring to have been spoken to by someone who is so obviously and simply put: a master of rethoric (that means 'speech'). Your precise anylysis and crisitcism of whichever parts of my thought you didn't understand makes me kneel in awe of your superior intellect.

Glad and grateful do we ought to be to witness this pinnacle of intelligent online discussion.

Thank you.

I'm sorry you read so much into my post. I just found the phrase 'You will probably overload/burst stuff" extremely funny for some reason :). It wasn't a comment on your entire post.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Now.  I don't think anyone is arguing that we could create a simulation today with our current technology that can simulate our current experience, and you don't know if future computers cannot simulate your current belief that you 'know' you are 'conscious'.

Besides being conscious is not incompatible with being in a simulation.

What after a few posts our debate is going to boil down to is Consciousness and do you believe consciousness is a production of the physical or is it something fundamental. I, just from various types of paranormal phenomena and afterlife evidence, do not consider the physicalist model tenable.

But this topic to me seems to make even more problems for the physicalist model. With humans there is posited to be some emergent property of the bio-chemistry and cells of the brain that produces consciousness. Now with a computer there must then be some totally different mechanism involved to emerge consciousness. That is really getting increasingly implausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Explain that please.  

<In Hindu philosophy>

There is One fundamental infinite Consciousness/Source/Brahman. And there is the material universe. And rays of this one Consciousness incarnate-animate finite forms giving them finite consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy smokes, guys.

You're not going to believe it.

The Universe has delivered unto me, unexpectedly and out of nowhere.... a donut!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Then wish really strongly for a donut to appear out of thin air. I dare you.

I cannot do that as I am a finite form of Consciousness without that ability yet.

I do believe there are living saints/avatars in human form (one I studied in particular) that could create a donut out of thin air. They are called Siddhis or yogic powers. 

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What after a few posts our debate is going to boil down to is Consciousness and do you believe consciousness is a production of the physical or is it something fundamental. I, just from various types of paranormal phenomena and afterlife evidence, do not consider the physicalist model tenable.

You are not just talking about what the ultimate source of consciousness is, you are saying things about implausibility of consciousness under certain conditions.  If you have a basis for that then it doesn't need to boil down to whether it's physical or not, you're not arguing that something is implausible because you believe consciousness is not physicalist and conflicts with your religious beliefs.  Explain why your paranormal and afterlife 'evidence' itself cannot be part of the simulation and ultimately an illusion.

21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

But this topic to me seems to make even more problems for the physicalist model. With humans there is posited to be some emergent property of the bio-chemistry and cells of the brain that produces consciousness. Now with a computer there must then be some totally different mechanism involved to emerge consciousness. That is really getting increasingly implausible.

You are just making assumptions that certain things cannot be simulated in the future.  If the position that consciousness comes from physical things like bio-chemistry and cells of the brain which are physical is accurate then I don't know why you think computers cannot also physically simulate it.  I don't think you're really engaging fully with the idea of a simulation, if your experience of consciousness and what you think you know about it is a product of the simulation, then you have no information upon which to make assumptions about what the requirements are for consciousness, since it's a simulation you don't know if what you think is accurate or even voluntary.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.