|
|
Post by zardoz on Sept 18, 2014 21:46:51 GMT
ps. Just wanted to say that I hope you won't feel shy about disagreeing with me. I'm perfectly fine with that. I rarely descend into the kind of nastiness as I did on the MBT forum. It was the constant straw-man argumentation which is very offensive (putting words in my mouth that I never said and consistently misrepresenting me, even after being politely corrected). Ok, will do, there's certainly nothing wrong with disagreements when they are conducted between equals rather than one side presenting themselves as the keepers of all truth and correctness. Thanks - just wanted you to know that's not my normal style of discourse  |
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Sept 18, 2014 21:54:22 GMT
I looked up simulism on Google images and found this cool pic for my avatar.
|
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Sept 18, 2014 22:40:49 GMT
I think there is a real moral problem with creating avatars that are conscious and suffer for some supposed benefit to the whole. We wouldn't allow if we could do it here so why should it be acceptable for those higher up in dimension to us to do it. A lot of bad stuff can be falsely justified on the basis of it all being part of some spiritual plan. Sorry if I'm overloading you with comments  Are you familiar with Nick Bostrom and his simulism theory? He is generally credited with the theory although I'm sure it's been around in various forms for longer than that. It goes like this: 1. If intelligent life is able to reach the stage where it can create realistic simulations and... 2. It does not impose restrictions against them for ethical/moral reasons ... 3. Then, by the law of averages, it is nearly certain that we are living in a simulation since there would be orders of magnitude more simulations than non-simulations. Well, it's hard to imagine our present leaders having moral qualms about simulations or much of anything else. One of the things that really blows my mind about this theory is the idea that nothing actually happens in secret. Every dark corner of the globe where unspeakable things are done to human beings and have been throughout human history, none of it is hidden from the LCS. Which makes you wonder if they're getting off on it or what? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2014 7:10:11 GMT
Re: Biological evolution
I suppose there is a subtle difference between 'never actually occurred' and being in the rule set. I think evolution is in the rule set and is a continuing phenomena that we can see happening in different ways in different situations, biology being just one of them, but I think the actual manifestation of a virtual reality could start at any point and so it's history could be a theoretical one that could be calculated but may never have actually happened. Tom likes his World of Warcraft analogies and so you could say that that virtual world has a theoretical back story of how it would have evolved but when someone switches on to play the game they don't sit and wait for evolution to pass, they jump straight in to the interesting bit.
The Fundamental Process of evolution is key in Tom's model as it is one of his two basic assumptions from which everything else arises, but I think you are right that the digital nature of the virtual realities that have evolved is such that we can be a lot more flexible and creative in whether evolution needs to manifest in the way science says today.
I did ask Tom once whether evolution was necessary as a second assumption for MBT to work as he has said that free will is not a third assumption that is required as it follows logically from the assumption of consciousness, they are two sides of the same coin, so if free will is a given, then will is a given, and if consciousness has will, then that is a sufficient driving force for spontaneous change and development to take place without needing to propose a mysterious independent force of evolution that is somehow separate from consciousness yet can act upon it. He said he would think about it, but even if he agreed I think it would probably be too big a change to go with, think of the rewrite of the Trilogoy that would be needed!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2014 7:15:39 GMT
I looked up simulism on Google images and found this cool pic for my avatar. Excellent :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2014 7:33:29 GMT
I think there is a real moral problem with creating avatars that are conscious and suffer for some supposed benefit to the whole. We wouldn't allow if we could do it here so why should it be acceptable for those higher up in dimension to us to do it. A lot of bad stuff can be falsely justified on the basis of it all being part of some spiritual plan. Sorry if I'm overloading you with comments Are you familiar with Nick Bostrom and his simulism theory? He is generally credited with the theory although I'm sure it's been around in various forms for longer than that. It goes like this: 1. If intelligent life is able to reach the stage where it can create realistic simulations and... 2. It does not impose restrictions against them for ethical/moral reasons ... 3. Then, by the law of averages, it is nearly certain that we are living in a simulation since there would be orders of magnitude more simulations than non-simulations. Well, it's hard to imagine our present leaders having moral qualms about simulations or much of anything else. One of the things that really blows my mind about this theory is the idea that nothing actually happens in secret. Every dark corner of the globe where unspeakable things are done to human beings and have been throughout human history, none of it is hidden from the LCS. Which makes you wonder if they're getting off on it or what? I didn't recognise the name but the theory sounds a little familiar and it makes sense that each non-simulated reality would create many more simulated realities. Just think of all the virtual worlds of all the computer games that we have already created. I suspect though that here are no non-simulated worlds and all worlds are in some way simulated with simulations happening within simulations. I think the argument that the LCS has to let all these things happen because allowing free will is paramount is fatuous. When so many people's free will is being totally disregarded in such horrendous ways, to just sit back and say it's all for the greater good of entropy reduction, is callous beyond belief. Morality evolves too and it seems to be that as a society becomes more civilised it moves away from just leaving the weak to suffer and the strong to do whatever they like and it develops support structures and enforceable moral guidelines to alleviate widespread unnecessary misery. We are far from achieving that of course, but it is at least a goal of moral and civilised people. The attitude towards PMR from the LCS seems more like the attitude of a teenager playing World of Warcraft, the difference being we are conscious aware beings - I'm assuming computer characters aren't actually aware without us realising it! I do see the importance of taking responsibility for what happens to us and that it does seem that the basic set up of VRs is that they simply and neutrally reflect what we do, but when that leads to such suffering for so many, then that means there is a systemic problem that needs intervention at a systemic level. If all the kids in a school are failing their exams then at some point you have to stop blaming the kids and look at the set up and structure and methods of the school itself. If all your rats are dying in the maze you've designed then maybe you need to think about tweaking the design. Tom has said that there has to be an equal chance of success or failure in a system for it to be at all worthwhile, and I kind of see that point, but it does put us in the position of experimental rats, and that's not a good feeling. That may be ego, but it is also surely justice and protecting the rights of the individual. |
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Sept 19, 2014 13:47:20 GMT
Before addressing your replies, let me try to clarify what I mean by "maybe biological evolution never actually happened". Tom says that this reality started with the big bang. The computer was programmed to start with this explosion and then everything after that happened naturally within the rule set designed to encourage "material" (in quotes since materialism itself is an illusion, a metaphor) evolution. Individual atoms grouped into molecules in order to reduce their entropy, individual single-celled creatures grouped together into multicellular organisms for the same reason, etc. But it's possible that all this never really happened "naturally" by itself. It could have been helped along by the LCS (which wanted to create these material simulations in order to fragment and experience itself, etc.), or it could be like a dream, a metaphor about material evolution created by the LCS to help us with our *immaterial* evolution ("as below, so above", in this case). I don't know if you are familiar with the problems surrounding Darwin's theory which Tom never mentions (for the reason, I think, that he needs to distance himself from the creationists/evolution deniers in order to appeal to mainstream science which is heavily invested in Darwinism). Most prominent among those problems is the absence of transitional fossils. There are some quotes by prominent Darwinists acknowledging this - "That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils - Embarrassed evolutionists try to ‘muddy the waters’" - creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils(Dr. Colin Patterson - at the time, the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the British Museum of Natural History) - "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University and prominent Darwinist, posthumously awarded the Darwin-Wallace Medal] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are *no transitional fossils*. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—*there is not one such fossil* for which one could make a watertight argument.’ Creationists seized on these quotes and ran with them, prompting Dr. Patterson to later say (sorry if you are already familiar with all this) - "I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists...I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect [or hypocritical] in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist’s duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule" [which is a whole lot] So Tom has to align himself with these guys who have already discredited their position with so many statements like the above if he wants mainstream acceptance of MBT. It's an unenviable position to be in. I think he is right in saying that it's all about evolution (of consciousness - maybe he's right - or should I say "hopefully" - hopefully there is some higher purpose to our existence in this 'veil of tears' and we are not just another simulation among uncounted trillions of them like Bostrom suggests) - yet there are these major problems with biological evolutionism as described by Darwin. ps. just out of curiosity...I'm assuming Ted's political hobby horse that you referred to is libertarianism - am I right? I cannot stand to read his posts or I would check for myself. I'm not a fan of libertarianism personally (that's an understatement), at least not the economic aspect of it which is essentially the law of the jungle. The social aspect is ok. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2014 14:53:43 GMT
I think the unexplained jumps in evolution are due to direct manipulation, whether that be by the LCS or ETs or others, or a combination thereof. Lloyd Pye has written about this in his interventionist theory of evolution: www.lloydpye.com/interventionebook.htmlI think Ted is a democrat, but like you I've also not read his posts :-) |
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Sept 19, 2014 17:09:17 GMT
I think the unexplained jumps in evolution are due to direct manipulation, whether that be by the LCS or ETs or others, or a combination thereof. Lloyd Pye has written about this in his interventionist theory of evolution: www.lloydpye.com/interventionebook.htmlI think Ted is a democrat, but like you I've also not read his posts :-) That's surprising - I thought sure he'd be a libertarian :-) Anyways...Ok, so if Pye is right (or whatever the explanation is), it seems that biological evolution just didn't work by itself, even with a presumably highly favorable rule set? Would you agree then that Tom is kind of fudging it when he endorses Darwinian evolution (in order to depict a seamless line from biological evolution to consciousness evolution - from past to future)? And would you agree about the political motivation behind it that I tried to explicate? Or do you have different view? Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily criticizing Tom's strategy for mainstream acceptance. It makes sense to me that he would do that. I'm more interested in understanding it at this point. I did a search for "Tom Campbell" + "transitional fossils" and got one result - a 2-hour video (https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=Z1axh6ki0oc). I found this one relevant comment - David B. Mathis Mar 10, 2014 - "I don't see any evidence for random mutations in evolution. Especially for examples of animals that seem to rapidly adapt perfectly to the environment that they are found in. Additionally, if all of these random mutations are happening at such a huge astronomical number in order to find a configuration that can survive better, why don't we find the mutated fossils of animals that didn't work. It just doesn't add up. I think evolution happens, but not randomly. It seems to happen though assistance of internal and external environmental feedback." Presumably that was in response to Tom's validating of Darwin with respect to mutation and selective breeding. Tom didn't reply to the comment so there don't seem to be any instances of his being confronted directly with the controversy over the absence of transitional fossils. |
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Sept 19, 2014 17:48:56 GMT
Does it show you all of my edits? Just to let you know, I am a compulsive editor (mea culpa).
|
|
Are you familiar with Nick Bostrom and his simulism theory? He is generally credited with the theory although I'm sure it's been around in various forms for longer than that. It goes like this: