The Simulation Hypothesis, Religion, Deism, and Time... (Part 1) - It's no threat.
Years ago on steemit.com I explored the simulation hypothesis quite a bit. It started with fascination, and then a question. I pursued that question. By the end of my journey I had decided that I consider it very possible that this could indeed be a simulation. I haven't stopped thinking about this since that time. I have wanted to revisit the subject for some time. I am finally getting around to it. I know this will be a lengthy topic that will need to be broken across several posts. It will be written in my typical stream of consciousness format. I have made an outline that currently consists of the following in terms of where I would like to go with these posts. Let us see how well I stick to the outline...
(Image Source: From an old steemit.com post of mine)
SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS: The idea that everything you see, think, and reality itself that we observe is running inside of some kind of simulation.
OUTLINE:
- If we are in a simulation hypothesis it does not make other religions irrelevant, it actually increases their potential for being possible. (The post you are reading)
- Deism the Simulation Hypothesis from the past...
- If we were in a simulation how would we know?
- What about time?
- What about simulations creating simulations?
- What about quantum states?
If you do not need a primer on the Simulation Hypothesis and you do not see it as a threat to religion you can likely wait for the next part. This part may not be of particular interest to you. I could be wrong though. It could inspire you or revive memories.
The Simulation Hypothesis is No Threat To Religions
I wanted to start this iteration of my exploration into this topic addressing one of the reactions I most frequently encounter. When the term Simulation Hypothesis comes up invariably some people that consider themselves very devoted to some traditional religion or another will find the concept offensive. I wanted to address this head on at the outset. By doing so my hope is they will not be in attack mode when reading the rest of what I have to say.
The simulation hypothesis is no threat to your religion. It actually makes all religions (even the most magical) more feasible depending upon how it is approached. It does not have to defeat your religion. It can be the missing element that explains how the unknown parts of your religion that are taken for granted, or simply as faith could actually be possible.
The simulation hypothesis does not destroy any religion, except one. For it to exist those that approach atheism as "no creator" should feel threatened by it. If on the other hand if they are the type of atheist that simply is against "theistic religions" that are formalized and authoritarian it should be no threat to them either.
To understand why this is the case I think you need to stop and think about what a simulation actually is...
What is a simulation?
While I am not a fan of resorting to dictionaries for such answers I know some of you are. I will therefore begin with some definitions from a couple of dictionary sites for the word simulation. Please note I do not recognize the authority of these sites or any others to dictate meaning. It can be useful to people that are unfamiliar with words. I will certainly explain my personal thoughts on the word after these definitions.
Dictionary.com
- imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
- the act or process of pretending; feigning.
- an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham.
- Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.
- the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.
Merriam-Webster
- the act or process of simulating
- a sham object : counterfeit
- the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another
- examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device
Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged
- the act or an instance of simulating
- the assumption of a false appearance or form
- (Computer Science) a representation of a problem, situation, etc, in mathematical terms, esp using a computer
- (Mathematics) maths statistics computing the construction of a mathematical model for some process, situation, etc, in order to estimate its characteristics or solve problems about it probabilistically in terms of the model
- (Psychiatry) psychiatry the conscious process of feigning illness in order to gain some particular end; malingering
My definition
Now with that out of the way. As I am writing about this subject it needs to be as clear as I can make it when I refer to simulations. A simulation is a system developed to represent a set of ideas that can be expressed over time in such a way as to enable the person using/observing the simulation to control the flow of time with regards to what they are simulating. A simulation is a model for an idea. It is a set of rules that can then be simulated to observe what the outcome of these rules might produce over time. A simulation is a recipe for a self-contained existence/reality.
It could be in scale models of a building before it is constructed. Time is stationary in that model, but it is used to simulate the viability and plan for the life sized construct later on.
It could be in a painting of a fictional person (or real) with the ideas of the painter used to express it. In this example time would be stationary.
It could be in a Planetarium designed to mimic the solar system. Which could be time stationary, could be motorized, or could be repositionable.
It can be in worlds created inside of computers. This is where my focus will primarily be as it is where my exploration has focused in my life and it is where things make sense to me when I consider this topic.
I do think it is important that you understand that a simulation can take many forms. Ultimately it is something created to follow a set of rules and conditions.
What is the Simulation Hypothesis?
I personally believe that the concept has existed throughout known history. It has only been given the label "Simulation Hypothesis" recently and that is largely due to computers and how we've watched our own computer simulations become more and more complex in an astonishingly short amount of time. We've been getting closer and closer to simulating our own realities and they come ever closer to being indistinguishable from reality. Thus, was born the Simulation Hypothesis. If we are doing it, why couldn't some creator/player/God have done the same thing with us but at a much more developed level?
(WIKI - not the most unbiased of sources or reputable at this point)
The person that pushed it into the modern spotlight was the philosopher Nick Bostrom.
Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.
His conclusion:
It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.
Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
— Nick Bostrom, Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?, 2003 Link to - Are you living in a computer simulation?
This is what started it up. It gained immense interest from many people including Elon Musk, people on Steemit, and myself. I was particularly interested because I'd been dabbling with simulations off and on since my early teens. I was making my own versions of John Conway's Game of Life on Commodore 64s in the early 80s after reading about them in one of the various magazines I could get my hands on. I'd read about boids and simulating bird flocking and I'd rush to make my own version. I'd learn about the Mandelbrot Set and fractals and go make my own versions of those. I would watch a Nova episode talking about the three body problem with orbiting planets that had some visuals on the screen and I'd go code my own simulation to do that. I would read about Eliza and Natural Language processing and I'd go make my own of that. All of those things I did before 1990.
I haven't stopped doing things. I've iterated upon many of those things. When I am working on game development those are often things in my arsenal of ideas. Ultimately in designing games the concept of procedural systems has been hugely influential upon me and my thought processes. It is also something some scientists sitting on panels discussing the simulation hypothesis failed to take into consideration when they decided to state what is and is not possible. If they'd understood procedural systems it made their impossible suddenly possible.
I was aware of this as I watched a lot of prominent scientists on stage debating the topic. It can be an eye opener when you realize that you know something these people do not. For they certainly know a lot of things I do not.
What Nick Bostrom did was to make all of us that had already been messing with these things stop and think about what we had been doing. That was important. Historically he was not unique in the idea of reality being a simulation he was just the one who put it in terms relating to a computer program.
So why is this no threat to religions?
Let me take Christianity as an example. I am not going to pick a particular denomination, and I am certainly paraphrasing/condensing. None of these are my views. They likely are not yours either. I am using them only as an example.
God Created the world in seven days and nights and the peoples, the animals, etc. For those against dinosaurs and what people say about them. God could have stuck those in the ground to give us exciting things to find.
To me that just as easily translates to God created a simulation with all of those conditions. Starting out with the animals and the world in a pre-built condition as a game developer to me screams level design. Christianity can neatly fit inside of the Simulation Hypothesis. It doesn't contradict Christianity. It actually gives a viable path for potentially explaining some of the areas that some people (I use the phrase as well) call "magical thinking".
Now pick any other religion...
They all could fit inside of a simulation. The Simulation Hypothesis doesn't destroy religion. It actually requires a creator. It provides a concept for how a creator might be able to actually create the things we have described in our religions. It strengthens the possibility of even the most magical of thoughts.
You may have noticed further above I used creator/player/God. I inserted player intentionally there.
Our video games are simulations. As the rules and the worlds become more complex we increasingly immerse ourselves into an alternate reality.
As the player you did not create the game. Yet you are potentially one of millions playing in that game with it reacting to what you did. Millions of simulated universes.
Was there a creator? Yes the developers of that game. Yet in the case of games we do not simply observe. We interact. The developers gave us a simulation that can spawn instances for each player.
Monotheism - Check
Sometimes the simulations allow multiple players into the same world...
Polytheism - Check
Until the next part...
In closing. The Simulation Hypothesis is no threat to your religion. It might make it more plausible.
In my case I used to call myself an Atheist/Deist well aware of the contradiction. During my exploration of this subject I dropped the atheist part of that. I consider myself a Deist. That will be explained in the next post.
Great post, I love exploring simulation theory!
I may have already shown you this, but just in
case I haven't, you may like this collection.
Nice... I will certainly CHECK that out after I finish writing these posts. I have a plan. I want to write it before I add to it. :) I am certain you know what I mean and looking at that I can tell there is a lot to unpack there that certainly will distract me. I look forward to exploring it... Some good stuff. I looked at the first one in the list then started looking at others and told myself I had to stop.
So it'll probably be a number of days. I'll likely space these posts out one a day. I listed how many I plan to do in the outline and I already have an idea what each of them will say.
After I look at your things I'll likely need to add to them. :)
I'm Looking forward to reading them!// ~👌~ //Feel free to riff off of my posts with your own and tag me if you do. :)
The one real obstacle to creating such a simulation ourselves is having thus far not figured out how to great a true general artificial intelligence. I'm not convinced we are terribly close to doing so either. However, once such a thing is accomplished, it is conceivable we could create a simulated environment for one or many such AIs though not necessarily one we could enter ourselves. Such a simulation could be created now but we wouldn't be able to perceive it as we perceive the "real world".
It might not require an artificial intelligence. What if we are avatars?
What if it is a game and there is a player inside of each of us, and each thing? That will become more obvious I think when I get to the part in this series on time.
Though you are correct that if we wanted to pull it off without requiring players directing things we would need true artificial intelligence.
I don't think we are particularly close to that either. We are already using what I call "expert systems" which are good at doing specific things but cannot do well outside of those constraints. That is what a lot of people refer to as artificial intelligence these days but I like you know that is but a shadow and is it truly intelligent if it must follow rigid rules? I guess it depends upon what intelligence means. It might be intelligent, just not at all wise, or free thinking.
With how fast things are progressing though I do not see this as much of a barrier at all to considering the possibility that we ourselves are inside of a simulation. It could have true artificial intelligence, or we may all be aspects of players inhabiting avatars. (Puts a spin on the concept of soul, and reincarnation if you ask me.)
That is was actually the question that started my post on this years ago. In the process of asking "How would the simulant know" I kind of convinced myself it was possible. I am not an absolutist so I will not say WE ARE in a simulation. I just consider it very possible.
If reality were only a simulation how would WE the simulants be able to know for sure?
I wrote that 5 years ago when I was basically asking about the same thing I quoted from you.
Hi @darth-azrael,
from my perception, I ask myself the question: don't people already believe in the omnipotence of artificial intelligence?
Personally, I don't believe in a straightforward created or simulated form of reality, whatever other labels there are. However, if a great many people follow the trend that there is omnipotence - no matter whether such a thing is created by an old belief system or a new belief system - I cannot have a weighty voice against it.
I think it is most harmless to leave open the origin of life or where it might go (AI etc.), to avoid dogmas and constraints arising from it.
People push the trends to a great level, is, what I perceive.
You said
Do you think it's going to be accomplished? When you think about details, how can this be accomplished, if it's merely based on the human imagination? Could it not be that to wish for such an omnipotent system that we only think that it works but in reality it's just simulating perfection?
I think you are right in pointing out that people, wo approach this simulation idea could be offended by it. True.
I am not certain if I feel truly offended or if it is just a reaction of disbelief. It depends on my mood. Whenever I think about an idea or concept, I ask myself: Would I find this idea worth to accept as real? Would it do anything good for me and my personal existence?
My answer here in particular is: No. I prefer it to exclude a "simulated reality" from my realm of decision making and would consider it irrelevant; though thinking and contemplating about this idea I find not un-interesting.
Having read your thoughts on this topic, I'd like to ask:
In which way does "simulation" differ from "creation" and thus from a religious belief-system? For me, it sounds like a replacement of those and other terms and definitions like a "higher intelligence"...
Also: is it not similar to what is assumed about omnipotence? If there is a creator or a creating entity behind a simulated reality, do we not merely discuss this on the bases of the same meaning, using only different vocabulary?
Or is it, that you may mean it in the sense, that we, the organic living beings, create this simulated reality by letting it become a "mega-trend" (belief-system) and so it has the potential to become real, whether it's real or not?
What about animals (or plants)? Do you think, they are unconscious about their existence? If you consider they aren't, what kind of influence can they possibly have on the human realm?
And last but not least, how do the absolutes fit into this concept we just talked about?
Creation is a form of Simulation. That was my point. It doesn't attack your religion at all. In fact, it changes nothing other than perhaps providing a way that the magical thinking (just trust me have faith) parts of religion could possibly occur. You don't have to use it. "What do you do with it?" Well you could do what you do with all of the other things that you can't explain that you just have faith in. Ignore it.
Or you could say. "I have faith, but there could be something to this simulation hypothesis idea as well". Yet I'll be expanding upon this over several posts. I just wanted to get the one out about religion first.
Nope. How can a simulation replace the thing that created it? A simulation by definition REQUIRES a creator. It also does not mean that creator does not then interact with their creation.
If there is a simulation then something existed before and OUTSIDE of the simulation. That is where a creator would have to come from.
It could be, but in general no. I'll be explaining this. Yet consider our simulations. When we make one do we suddenly have instantaneous awareness of what is going on everywhere in our simulation at the same time? Not even.
So it could be that type of situation. It could also be quite a number of different approaches. I'll do my best to touch on those soon.
What belief system? There is no system. You keep practicing your existing belief systems.
I'll touch on this. Nothing stopping them from being simulated just as much as any of us. They could potentially also be avatars. I don't really need to define any of that. The interesting point is that it might be possible.
There is no belief system around this. Though your questions seem to be trying to get me to make up one. :)
Math. :)
EDIT: I will likely touch on a number (not all) of these things today as today's part will deal with Deism in relation to the Simulation Hypothesis.
In the theory of a simulation, which I equate with believing in an intelligent entity or a singular entity (as some seem to believe) that has created something like a simulated reality, I don't see any difference to Christianity or the faiths that believe in one (or more) deity(ies). I thought that this would show in my response and questions.
That is not what I meant. I was talking about language. Like "simulation" can replace the word "creation" or "god".
If you start from a possible simulation that we earthlings are led to believe, then the next logical question would be: what would reality look like in contrast to the simulation? And if there is omnipotence why that much effort if it can create instead of simulate? Smile. Maybe for fun?
As soon as you accept something as "simulated", you also accept a force that is capable of such a gigantic simulation. How do you explain this in contrast to the existing attempts at explanation (the world religions)? Do you know anything about Alan Watt's speeches? He explains it with a lot of humor.
What bothers me about this is that you can basically explain anything with the simulation theory (in the same way with the creation theory). No matter what question I would ask you, you could explain everything with the same argument: everything is simulated.
I think it would be a pity not to discuss doubts about the simualtion theory.
Perhaps it would be important to say what my attitude is: I have not decided what I personally believe in. In fact, I think it is best not to make that decision intellectually at all. The closest thing to me is Buddhism in the way that there is no theory of creation there in the first place. Personally, I also find it completely irrelevant to ask about the creation of life when life itself is a fact. Other aspects of this school of faith are very suspicious to me and I view them critically.
The mystery of life is nevertheless something I regard with humility. I respect liveliness, but not a creator. I love the living, but do not need a sharp or precise explanation of it. It is like getting pregnant. You have an idea of how it happened (and I don't mean what we explain biologically), but what remains after all the explanations, after all the knowledge, after all the cognitions we have acquired: That which we do not know.
If I interrupt you in this path or disturb you in that your way of approaching things in writing is to discard or deepen something, I am sorry. But only a little. Otherwise you wouldn't have published it already, would you?
Cheers to you :)
You were a dedicated section of today's post. I didn't see this reply before I wrote it.
I actually address a lot of the things you are thinking about in some other areas I am just trying to present them in an order that won't lead me to a jumble of hopping back and forth all over the place. If I'd get lost doing it then I suspect the readers will as well.
Keep the replies coming though as they are inspirational and make me think. I hope to cover what you are asking. If not then we should cover it when I am done for sure.
I already have a new bullet point to add to the end of the series:
Because one can? :)
By "one" I don't mean one entity but all of us together, like expressed down below.
Boredom? Fun? A taste for drama?
Yep... I might make that my final point. Come up with a bunch of different scenarios someone might do it. Mostly you hit on them in that simple reply though.
Simulation could be interchangeable with the word "creation" because technically they are interchangeable.
God though could not be replaced by simulation because a simulation must be created. The creator cannot be replaced by their creation when describing it.
A book does not replace the author of the book.
A table does not replace the carpenter that built it.
Not, if you understand "God" as a non-person but as an "impersonal source of potency". I have de-personalized this concept of god. So for me, it's easy to replace the terms in that sense.
The book which writes itself in the always upcoming events of all participants of the ever changing events. Not written by but written through them "all" (like the "all" = "universe").
This is more of an inclusive approach, which takes into account that there are not outsiders on the one hand, and one single insider on the other. God = we all together.
Does that make sense to you?
Sure I know there are people that will go that route. It is highly unlikely I'd ever convince them of anything.
I can tell you now I'd never be able to go that route. I intentionally used the word NEVER.
It is against everything I have observed in the way I behave in life.
I understand what many people, myself included, call "magical thinking" but it doesn't work for me. I must ask questions. I must be willing to change my mind.
When a person decides in an unassailable fashion that their God is a thing that they have been taught by other people, or read in a book then there is not much I can do about that. It also doesn't leave much room for conversation. The absolutes turn me off so I lose interest in dialog.
I often know more about their religion and the history of how it was created than they do. There are indeed exceptions to this. I've known some biblical scholars that knew more than I did. They found contradictions and went to great effort to explain how those could occur. To them their explanation was sufficient. The books were insanely detailed too. I could have conversations with them because they had actually put in the time to think and research rather than just parroting what they were told, or read in a book. We were/are friends. (EDIT: It depends upon the religion of course. I know a ton about Christianity, and pre-Council of Nicea 1 & 2 history)
At least until I think of some other approach that I find compelling and the opportunity arises.
NOTE: I know you stated this was not you. I am referring to the people you described and the situation you described.
EDIT: I do not mean to attack your religion or any other religion. Sometimes what I think about the state of religion will leak out in my discussions even when ultimately it is a personal choice.
I have a lot of problems with organized religion. To me it has been greatly corrupted over time just like every other human organization that survives a generation or two after it's inception.
I also don't buy into the "Word of God" with any text written in ever evolving human languages that are insufficient still to this day to explain so many incredible things.
That is why reality itself is the word of God to me. If you choose to call it that.
Bibles are just humans sharing their observations and TRYING to explain what they think those observations were.
Speculation, Hypothesis... over time presented as FACT.
I've experienced this phenomena in real time with people before. I've watched something that was speculation about a strange event I was present for. Then a couple of days later they were telling people about the event and now instead of saying "I thought maybe it was this" they were instead saying "and this is what caused it". Speculation had transitioned to being treated as fact, with no supporting evidence.
I've seen this a number of times.
I also tend to see what to me look like the subtle fingerprints of similar things occurring in every bible/religious text I've ever read.
That doesn't mean I do not see the value in them. I do. That is why I collect them and read them. It's been awhile since I read a new one though.
I just don't see human text as the "word of God". To me it smacks of arrogance to state that it is (from the authors).
I feel not attacked, for I actually do not have a fixed religion or belief.
I was a little confused by your answer. Did you latch onto my expression "the book writes itself" in a way that I might have meant the Bible?
I agree with everything you said in your response about speculation and presenting them as facts. In the same way I agree that institutions which last too long, become corrupt.
I think, moreover, that the saying "God created man in HIS image" is the other way around to what faith issues are about: "Man created God in HIS image (mentally)."
You did not elaborate on the fact that I said that all of us (humans and that which we do not know nor know exactly about in the universe) are the creators of our material and immaterial reality. Is it because that is already a self-understanding for you?
At least it is for me. I therefore have no religion or fixed faith, I have a loose faith. :) My existence, my thinking, my acting and feeling do not fixate on an unchangeable state. I experience my existence as something changing, depending on what or whom I come into contact with. Somewhere in this ongoing process, however, I need a stop and a moment of decision. My everyday life seems so much more banal than my mental space. I am probably doing this everyday life an injustice. :)
Labels are basically overrated. It is the spontaneous unique encounter that wants to master itself artfully. If it doesn't succeed, we are dissatisfied.
I didn't answer it. It is a possibility. Yet I also don't think existence happened because of humans. That is why the simulation hypothesis is important.
I do personally believe that it is humans who have created the religions and the God(s). I am just trying not to attack any particular religion. I could do so. Some of them I know quite well like Christianity. Yet I don't have interest in attacking someone's religion. I liked it when I was younger. I truly do not see the simulation hypothesis as a threat to any creator based religion. The perceived threats only seem to occur because people have assumptions about what a simulation requires, and how it must be. Yet in reality there are many different approaches. Some of them indeed would be at odds with religions. Others though not so much.
Souls, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Nirvana, Valhalla, The Happy Hunting Ground, Reincarnation, etc. None of these things are stopped by the possibility of a simulation.
I am a Deist. I currently believe there is a creator. That is the limit of my definition of the creator. I don't seek to speculate and then tell people THIS IS WHAT IS REAL. To me that is how all bibles have been created (for all religions) and why they keep evolving and being edited over time. Fellow human beings given some authority then speculating on things and writing those speculations down as fact.
Yet I could be wrong too. So I let people make their own choices. I share my ideas but I do not demand people agree with me.
And why would you? There are no 1-cause or be-causes of this or of that :) not even multi-causes but something other than that. This "other" we can think about, be delighted by or burdened with it. Or else.
language-wise it's too close for me to "a" person.
I believe in creation, I do.
For, being all of this a mere coincidence? I say "nah". Being it architected from a super-entity? Also "nah".
So I can only tell what it is not (for me).
Much better than what I can tell it is.
I can't :)
Explaining existence is like spoiling a joke, don't you think?
Yeah I am not seeking to define what the creator is. Something with intelligence and able to come up with intelligent design.
I often thought, or I shall say, contemplated about the term "define" = de-fine. Is it not that one makes an end, a point behind a finition?
Hah. I hadn't considered it. If you break it down the way you just did it could actually mean "To remove the finality", or "To remove the end".
Though I am likely mixing languages there. Most of my Latin is inferred from encountering it. I've never actually studied it.
I have never had Latin. But I love languages. I sometimes make up words, especially in English, because I don't have a perfect command of the language (although I really can't talk about perfection in German either). Speaking a foreign language is exciting.
Finition is probably a fantasy word?
But you knew what I meant right away.
What do you think of this word here: H E L L th - I find it very contemporary. lol
Heh. At a guess. Your health is in hell... so crappy?
I worked at a medical center one summer and had to digitize a bunch of records the old fashioned way. I typed them into the word processor. I got a lot of exposure to Latin words and I found I was pretty good at guessing their meaning after awhile.
It helps when a language is pretty logical and consistent.
I studied some Spanish. By ear and speaking to people. I don't read it.
Two years of German in High School, one semester in College.
I took one semester of French and hated it. All the silent letters drove me crazy. Overkill on silent letters.
I liked German a lot but I was never around people to speak it. So sometimes when I hear it I can understand PARTS. Most of what I knew about it I have lost due to not using it for anything.
No, more critical. "Hellth-terror".
Obsession with health. That kind of stuff.
I worked as an accountant in the health sector back then. Read thousands and thousands of hand written diagnosis from the doctors. Did the same in guessing after a while. One has to overcome the boredom.
Wow, I hear a lot of people from abroad actually got German lessons. Wouldn't have thought that.
Of course, it rusts and dies when not used by tongue and brain. Same with English. That's why I started blogging in English and reading as well as using the translator - great learning tool, for it suggests synonyms.
Bye for now, a pleasure talking to you. Oh, and visit my blog once in a while, would you?
I do check your blog occasionally. I just get distracted by work and such. Often I struggle to get a post out and answer my replies. :) When I get a moment though I have checked yours. Not as often as I should.
please, if you can take your time, read here:
https://hive.blog/philosophy/@erh.germany/why-not-being-impressed-by-an-intelligence-which-is-neither-omnipotent-nor-coincidental-but-potent-and-incidental
I guess this could shorten our conversations a bit. Or maybe, we shouldn't shorten them? lol
I do agree that there are a lot of fake illnesses, and B.S. medicinal practices. I am simply against the absolute of deciding because one was wrong all of them are wrong. I am against the 90% of them are wrong so all of them are wrong. The 10% could be important.
Personally I look at as anything being potentially wrong.
Likewise if I see something majorly wrong with an idea, I don't speculate then come up with an idea and say this is right and everything about that idea was wrong.
At least I try not to.
I want to know about even the pieces that are correct wherever I may find them.
If someone says something compelling to convince me of the flaw of something. (That is fairly easy in modern medicine.) That doesn't mean I am going to immediately agree with their conclusion of what they think is actually going on.
I'll think about it. I truly will. It will likely shape my thoughts. Yet I may come to a different conclusion, or I may not.
There are a lot of problems with intelligence(not referring to wisdom... I view that as something different):
Another thing is that a lot of people (not you or I) think they should win an argument and change a mind immediately. That is actually pretty rare if you think about it. It happens but it is not at all common.
Usually people argue/debate/discuss then go off and over time their thoughts shift. I often use the analogy of casting seeds. Some of them might take root but we cannot predict how they may grow.
So we come to the same conclusions.
It's good to ask questions, to admit when one was too fast in taking a stance, to leave space for thinking and the like.
What I mostly try to express are the great tendencies I can observe in the world. Those things I see as overwhelming, dominant and forceful. In my article which I linked above my main point was the sheer mass of threats, in particular diseases. Would you agree that this makes living in a society overly difficult, this obsession with health? I mean, don't you perceive it as obsessive? I do. I want to balance things out. To let others see what I see. Being tolerated that I do not and will not follow the anti-aging trend, the "must stay healthy-trend", the "be beautiful-trend" and so on. I suffer from being judged, estimated, labeled and as a result of it, excluded. I feel, we reached a peak in making ourselves products, objects.
Yes, you are right. People do not change their minds in an instant. I don't, thats for sure. But also, when the seed is sown I will think about what another one told me and take it into account. This requires that people are able to listen and to be in dialogue. It's not a battle.
Certainly. Going to extremes (aka obsessing) over things usually has some pretty negative side effects.
Not a battle unless they turn it into one. If they know how to converse with people that disagree then it is not a battle. It is an exchange, a dance, a sharing, and it is beneficial to all participants when done properly.
If they turn it into personal attacks and such it can become a battle. Though I tend to just decide it is a waste of my time and WALK AWAY in the proverbial sense. Their loss, not mine.
That's how it can be. A dance, exchange, sharing, all beneficial, yes. I appreciate when this happens. I had it several times on the blockchain, not all are still here ore with me. It's interesting to converse and mix thoughts with real stories from life, like we did last night.
That happens super quick. People approach one another without any distance and decency. I was called names/labels or totally misunderstood through what I asked. I am overly careful not to insult someone but you cannot avoid it. What happens to me personally the most, is that people just do not respond after having been asked questions or being presented with what they actually were demanding in the first place.
True. :D
If I don't respond it will be either 1) I got distracted by work/life and didn't see it, 2) Saw it but was working and forgot to reply, or 3) I see it and can't think of anything worth saying at the time. I often will up vote such a reply to let the person know I at least saw it. (though I can forget to do that)
alright. Thanks for letting me know.
I could almost say the same to you. I sometimes lose track when I have too much going on, either here or somewhere else.
Time for the night. Bye.
Explaining existence and pushing it as fact is usually a lie, or at best a facsimile of the truth.
Speculating about existence is fun and seems to be part of our existence.
When people push their speculations as fact is when we start to have problems.
if only we can leave it there, yes :)
let's care about the fun.
I dislike it a lot when someone pushes their speculation as fact. I've witnessed it first hand so many times.
I didn't do drugs (briefly like 1 month when I was 16). Instead I tended to get my excitement from two sources. This in the 1980s.
I listened to a lot of music. (predominantly metal)
I ghost hunted before that was really a thing in popular culture.
Out of the 100s of times I looked I only had a few experiences I cannot explain. I got an adrenaline high every single time though.
It was a first hand opportunity to see someone get freaked out about something and say "Maybe it was X" and that was it.
A couple of days later I'd see them talking to someone telling them about it and they would say "It was X" and the maybe was no longer there.
I thought back then that I was likely witnessing one of the mechanisms that a lot of religions have been created by. Often not even intentional. Simply someone choosing to push their speculation as fact. The other people hear it and repeat it without even knowing at one point it was just speculation.
I have taken some drugs, I started when I was in my mid-twenties and stopped in my early thirties (rather moderately, never really excessively, I always stop when it's best). They were generally fine experiences that taught me a few things. I had heard a lot of bad things about drugs. I once tried to "get on bad" on purpose. Sat in some club toilet and tried to create bad feelings and thoughts. Didn't work. Seeing myself sitting there like that made me giggle and then I flushed, opened the door and went dancing.
Ghost hunters? Great word. We did that too. Glass spinning with letters in a circle. Really was enormous fun. I was very creeped out at the same time and on the other hand I said to myself: interesting, the energy of several people in a circle, aimed at a glass, makes it move. I was really eager at that time to repeat this interesting experiment. The deepest depths of our unconscious states probably came out, but also obvious vanities of the participants. It was a real social experiment for me, laced with a bit of goosebumps. I found it impressive.
Also to observe the different characters in the process: always someone who wanted to be very sceptical and above things, or someone timid or frivolous, etc. Great, thanks for reminding me.
Drugs usually made me feel refreshed or funny. Except once, I got a little too much. But that was worth the trip too.
Not everyone can handle it. Just like with alcohol. Some people get really nasty or aggressive, others finally get their lips apart and start talking or opening up. All this generalising really gets on my nerves. The pill-poppers are probably in the majority, but they don't call their stuff drugs.
I agree. Making claims based on speculation is enervating. I was on holiday with my ex-husband and when I was able to look at it humorously, I laughed inwardly when his holiday version differed significantly from mine. He liked to invent some facts that were never to be found.
What time is it for you right now? Where are you located? Almost first time we talk directly.
Well for me... by ghost hunting. I started it when I lived an old mining town with lots of empty decrepit buildings. Also a lot of old buildings in town.
I'd hear stories about them being haunted and I'd go running off in the night with my friends to investigate them. :) I'd actually go to the places people were saying were haunted. I first started doing that when I was around 11 or 12. (It was a small town and kids running around town at night was still safe and harmless, plus my parents were likely in one of the two or three bars at the time)
So you've experienced the standing next to someone who is completely terrified and it feels kind of like you are standing next to some kind of battery?
I always mused that if I was a spirit those people would be my dinner bell.
I've been stoned on Marijuana probably half a dozen times.
I've tasted 6 types of alcohol. Never been drunk, or hung over.
I've taken half a gram of mushrooms which apparently was half the dose I should have taken.
I've taken ONE drag off of a cigarette.
I've done some chewing tobacco when I was young until I got sick. Some friends and I found a brand new unopened back of REDMAN and we were pretty young.
All of that occurred when I was 16 or younger. I am now 50.
No, nobody was completely frightened, at most anxious. I don't understand about the battery? Are you referring to the energy? The energy I felt, whether scared or brave, sceptical or amused, it's hard to describe, it was the presence of several people that favoured it, much stronger than trying to do it in pairs, for example (pretty much unfeasible). Actually, I've never seen people stare and concentrate so intently on something in a bunch before or since. That in itself is strange, isn't it? Why do we have so few experiences like that?
Haha! Dinner bell! Funny! :D
Great idea to change perspective and imagine you are the summoned spirit.
Oh, for strolling outside during the night as a kid: same here. I am from a small town. I think "helicopters" would call the authorities nowadays. I am glad my parents were not so tight letting me have my freedoms.
I am 51 .
I'll go now. Time for the bed. Just a quick check on your other comment.
Good night from here.