I think of a person as inhabiting a universe. then anything that person constructs must be inside the universe they inhabit. I cannot envisage how they would then get inside the universe they just constructed. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Any constructed universe (just a name for a necessarily simpler simulation) is nested in your universe. There is no way a simulation could duplicate the complexity of the actual universe.

If it did, you'd end up converting the universe itself in a total reconstruction toward a new past or a future.

The thought alone of no life having meaning disturbs me quite deeply, and I have these thoughts often, and they are irrefutable. There is no reason to live. — JacobPhilosophy

Your thoughts are just post hoc scripts that magnify and feed-back on the affects of your depression.

Practice observing the emotional affects without getting caught up in the narratives they help generate. Close the gate on memetic instigators.

Do activities which do not involve too much self-reference and which you also enjoy. Take your first person view outside of your body using your imagination. Try flying over a city you've never been to. Go to the moon. Climb the rigging of a sailing ship and sit in the crows nest. Toilet paper Pfhorrest's house.

Imagine reality is irreducible.

Find an animal to interact with in a therapeutic setting. Find some oxytocin release.

I can't imagine aliens inside the VR they had created. by analogy, I don't expect to meet Bill Gates inside the Microsoft Flight Simulator. there might be a virtual Bill Gates, or a hologram of Bill Gates, but not the actual Bill Gates. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Eh, just speak directly. It isn't that you can't imagine it as much as you don't wish to consider such a scenario in this discussion.

If you are meeting Bill Gates via Skype, are you really meeting Bill Gates?

Are you saying that we validate our existence by receiving attention from other people? — Alejandro

We become who we are through our relationships to other people (does sound a bit general and cliche). You may intentionally change how you interact depending on the nature of the relationship and many other impressions. As to whether this kind of curation is to be labeled authentic or fake, who is to finalize that determination?

Oh... I hate ending with questions.

This is some kind of named bias, but I can't remember the name of it. Anyone else? — Pfhorrest

You're not secretly testing us are you, as if we ought to know. Egocentric bias? Hypocrisy?

Does the cogito ergo sum make sense to you? — TheMadFool

What can one do with this foundational intuition if everything else is to be doubted? You're giving me Cartesian anxiety.

If we move upwards from Descartes dirty basement (too much of the ol' philosophia), we can all put our clothes back on and have reasonable doubts in the living room.

What I mean to show here is that this is an egregious error; skepticism actually leads you away from, rather than to, materialism: we can doubt the reality of the physical/material world but we can never doubt the existence of our minds. — TheMadFool

Don't you have to be a bit more conservative and say that you can't doubt the existence of your own mind. You can doubt the existence of mine. Descartes gives you permission.

Sorry, I highjacked your thread with pseudo koans.

The Wish To Be A Red Indian by Franz Kafka:

"If one were only an Indian, instantly alert, and on a racing horse, leaning against the wind, kept on quivering jerkily over the quivering ground, until one shed one's spurs, for there needed no spurs, threw away the reins, for there needed no reins, and hardly saw that the land before one was smoothly shorn heath when horse's neck and head would be already gone."

I ran a small poll in which I asked participants wether social media profiles represent fake selves, in which the overwhelming answer was yes. — Alejandro

Well, even outside of presenting oneself on social media platforms we mediate our performance all the time to achieve desired ends. Work requires that we act in a certain way, which maybe at odds with an innate tendency in expressing oneself. Folks working in social media surely are curating how they appear based on what is known to draw attention.

Maybe it was Freud who originally explained mental illness and psychological distress as the conflict between innate drives and social demands. It takes a lot of energy to follow rules.

Suppose an authentic self is actually rather repugnant or immoral, or sans the shaping influence of a community, empty (a man without an audience is not a man).

I can't personally imagine how A would construct a simulation of their own universe that includes themselves, but that's probably a limitation of my imagination rather than of your description. — Kaarlo Tuomi

You can't imagine aliens in VR but you can imagine alien physicists doing high-fidelity ancestor simulations which produce self-conscious beings? Hmmmm. Fishy.

Am I being tested by the simulation?

The students gathered in the rose garden to listen to the Grand Master Potus talk about his enlightenment.

“You know, I’m, like, a enlightened person.” “I am a really enlightened guy.” “I’ve been known as being a very enlightened guy for a long time.” “I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” “I’m enlightened. Some people would say I’m very, very, very enlightened.” “And then people say oh, is he a enlightened person? I’m more enlightened than all of them put together, but they can’t admit it.” “My EQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure; it’s not your fault.” “My two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really enlightened…. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star, to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not just enlightened, but Buddha….and a very stable Buddha at that!”

The 'great and tremendous' emptiness which Master Potus evoked brought Donna from Fox News to tears.

"It was like he lifted up America with his giant hands and 'ka-ching'! I was enlightened."

1. what does having made a simulated universe say about the civilisation that made it? — Kaarlo Tuomi

Depends on how sophisticated the civilization becomes I guess and what they're actually using simulations for.

'O God, I could be bound in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space – were it that I had sufficient control over the simulation.'

Simulations bridge physical distances. You can do pretty much anything without going anywhere, so the energy savings would be substantial.

The actual cosmic distance between planets likely makes traveling to other solar systems untenable, so naturally one would expand a sense of inner space with simulations.

2. given that the simulation is, or should be, undetectable by those inside it, how, precisely, does its existence communicate anything to anyone else? — Kaarlo Tuomi

The ones inside it are presumably the ones who made it.

The goat asked the man, "what's wrong?" — igstarn's Zen Slap

Then, all of a sudden, it hit him. "Goats can't talk!" — igstarn's Zen Slap

The man was enlightened. — igstarn's Zen Slap

"Goats can't talk!"

...and the man was enlightened. — Pfhorrest

"That's tremendous!" Zen Master Trump proclaimed as he clapped with one hand.

There are no things in the absence of things.

There are no thoughts in the pursuit of no things.

What things, what things, is to sing of what things?

But the sting of these things is enough.

To think of these things,

In a string of these things can be tough.

There are no things in the absence of stings!

But the sounds and the migraines are enough.

I assume by formal justice you mean due process. — Antonorganizer

Yes, precisely the term I should have used in my OP.

In the George Floyd case for example, there's a lot of pressure for this cop who seems completely out of line to be charged. To your point, it doesn't allow a jury to weigh the evidence as objectively as possible. It's been a huge consensus that he's a cold-blooded murderer in court of public opinion, and if he isn't charged, that will be assumed proof of systemic racism. If we can't set a clear distinction between the court of public opinion and formal justice, it opens up a frightening door to mob justice. — Antonorganizer

Well expressed concern and exactly to the point. If a verdict can be reached without a jury by some means, does the judge weigh the potential backlash of the public in his determination of guilt, out of self-preservation or a desire to maintain public peace?

In a way people know this. You don't walk out from the theater after seeing a superhero or an alien movie wondering if it was a documentary do you? — Outlander

No but after seeing a documentary you might have strong opinions about who is guilty of a crime. Lots of short clips on reddit showing potentially criminal (or just bad) behavior have no context but the condemning language of a righteous mob follows in the comment section. The jump to a conclusion is a bit hasty.

What role, if any, did Netflix's Filthy Rich have in putting pressure on finding and prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell? Any?

How will the vociferous opinions of those watching Netflix's Unsolved Mysteries renew the focus on suspects. I can imagine death threats are already being sent to a few individuals in these docs.

I read a story yesterday about a poor slob who lost his job because of a tantrum at Costco. I mean, who hasn’t occasionally lost their shit at Costco. — praxis

There was a case of a some professor being targeted as a participant in Charlottesville tiki torch march even though he was never there.

Tantrums get you fired I guess, unless you're the President of the United States.

Jeff Bezos is a real entity with powerful resources. He is our modern day Sauron.

One online retailer to rule them all
One online retailer to find them
One online retailer to bring them all

And with a monopoly, bind them

Mrs. Zenilinski caught Gregory passing notes in class.

"Gregory! Come up to the front of the glass and answer this question on the black board. What does 2+2 equal?"

Gregory shuffled his feet a bit and took a moment then scrawled a large 9 on the black board.

Mrs. Z huffed in exasperation. "This is what happens when you don't pay attention to your math lessons. The answer is 4. Go to the Dunce corner and put the Koan hat on."

Gregory did as he was told.

Mrs Z addressed the class. "Now everyone, tell me why Gregory must wear the Koan hat."

Sophia raised her hand and responded: "Because Greg has no causal power. What happens to Greg is beyond his control. "

Mrs. Z tensed. "Sophia! Go to the Dunce corner and put on a Koan hat. We shall not encourage such disobedience."

The monk, Gregory, did not show up for the morning Sermon.
"Does anyone know where Gregory is?" the abbot asked the other monks.

"He's been drinking the Buddha's Koolaid again and has a hang over," Sam answered.

The abbot's nose blushed rose.

"Let me remind everyone that drinking the Buddha's Koolaid is verboten and is a one way ticket outta here!"

Remember also that laws come into and out of being to serve particular interests and can be interpreted and executed with bias.

What if you had to pay a gratuitous tax for every extra window you wanted to put in your house? Such laws likely have little to nothing to do with what is right or wrong in a moral sense.

Best get to the objective truth of the matter then...

:snicker:



Do you think that I am serious?

You've absolutely cracked Wheatley. Mary Poppins is a fictional character in a film (with a crappy sequel). To my knowledge there is no cult behind it. I was merely commenting on the actual content of the sequel.

True but unfortunately Michael wasn't able to save his home from a fire. It burnt down due to a stuffed up chimney. The chimney worker that the Bank's family used died from lung cancer and was unable to clean the chimney in Michael's home. The Chimney was left unclean for many years until said fire. — Wheatley

You've strayed from the Poppins orthodoxy (the facts of this fiction). You're gonna have to provide evidence for your claims.

Well, can the existence of others be used to prove my non-existence? — Eric Souza

Most folk have a general idea of how to determine whether you are dead or alive. They can listen to your heart beat, check to see if you are breathing, take your temperature, or take further lethal action to achieve certainty.

Generally living rational folk dismiss the possibility of ghosts due to lack of evidence.

If there were no other people to determine whether you were dead or alive then of course it'd be up to you to affirm it.

:nerd:

Thank good Fiduciary Sense that Michael Banks didn't feed the birds, invested his tuppence and was able to save his family home from being foreclosed upon.

I'm wanna be antiphilosopher in a philosophy forum and I'm not educated enough to call myself anything but a doubting kindergartner.

Let's go fly a kite.

Here's hoping for sentient blob networks and eusocial insect civilizations. No more dirty apes!

Life probably would look a lot similar on the same kind of planet but there are probably countless alternative ways to achieve our current functionality and it need not occur.

All the philosophical banter about self has little if any impact and probably pales beside the dramatic shift of perspective Zen provides. — jgill

The banter is almost koan like. One is left scratching there head as to why a flat out refutation of the self makes sense as if it ought to have been something fixed and unchanging in the first place (ie. a soul). Zen narratives are all about this kind of refutation of self, whereas I glean Zen is really about sitting with "empty awareness" and not thinking much. Though Zen is also committed to a Buddhist tradition and doctrine which guides moral action. So even if there is no self to die, no self to murder, there is still attachment to the world in the practice. You can't have your Zen that isn't Zen (cake and eat it too). You can't kill the Buddha if the man you'd kill is Buddha (says who?).

One might say that the necessary perceptions and attendant actions nominally ascribed to "a self" are the result of unknown forces. A person has no causal power born of the self. We have the illusion someone is driving the machine but this is just "empty awareness." Or my words are empty bullshit.

Energy flows freely as the universe moves from low to high entropy. Life needs the flow to maintain its local order but in doing so it negligibly increases the break down of the universe.

In order to make an omelette after the sun dies, you're gonna have to get creative.

So I would say that the self is an idea, a thought around which all thought becomes organised, that becomes all important. I call this process of thought 'identification.' Starting like this is has the advantage that it is clear from the beginning that we are not talking about the physicality of the human being, but of the construction of an image in the mind. Now I can say very simply that I, unenlightened, am writing this post, having these thoughts and pressing these keys, but that all these things can perfectly well happen, and happen even rather better, without the idea of myself intruding at all. — unenlightened

But suppose there was somekind of civil unrest in your city and this produced a certain amount of worry about your person or property. Does any projection of the future self and its well being amount to an intrusion of the self in one's mind (ex. the self is thinking about the conditions of its continuity). It seems this is about the physicality of self.

The whole reason we imagine the self is to ensure its continuity. Granted there might have been a time prior to this where instinct served us well in the absence of self-awareness. I'm sure many would argue that the neurotic self-obsession of modern times has become a kind of self harm. Just like it's good to eat food in moderation, so is it to avoid over-thinking or worrying about future states, but this is easier said than done.

Is this sort of what you mean?

If there is ultimately only one thing that exists, the whole thing, which is reduced or divided into aspects, parts, functions, multitudes, then it is the universe.

It's like Hilbert's Hotel. Whatever is has a room in the universe motel.

This is more a subject for Zen meditation. There one learns, or experiences one's "I" as a fabrication. Instead of "I am aware" there is only awareness. An instant of realization is worth more than a lifetime of philosophical dialogue. — jgill

I think you ought to mean a life time of practice is worth more than an instant of realization. :P Especially if there is "nothing" to realize.

So if there are no selves in whatever this metaphysical sense is, is there also no things?

Why isn't a "self" just an object with a special status.

I don't think "insanity" is a psychiatric diagnosis.

If the patient knows they have a psychiatric condition where states of control and self-awareness cycle on and off, then the patient may well have a reasonable grasp of their own problem.

I agree its less likely for someone with chronic psychosis to be aware of how crazy they are.

It's really ok, they are all versions of modbot. They can't be held accountable and their creators are inaccessible, just like Terminix customer service.

The moderating algorithms maybe biased but its for our own good, probably.

They erase harmless threads when they could just as well move them to The Lounge. I guess that takes extra computational work.

When VR (virtual reality) becomes realistic enough will anyone remain unplugged? — Benj96

It would depend entirely on the incentives/disincentives of being plugged in. What are they currently with respect to VR?

Has work been moved into a VR space and is now a requirement for maintaining basic economic needs? Or is VR just a luxury experience like video games that folks play in their spare time?

What about physical maintenance of the body? Can the body do its thing while its consciousness can play.

Has this world reached a state of sustainable providence by AI and robotic labor, such that folks are free to choose how to spend their time?

It seems that a substantial amount (>50%) of heat lost by human beings in a cool temperature is due to thermal radiation (mostly infared light?). I guess that is why mylar blankets work if you can insulate yourself well enough and why a thermos has a reflective material on the inside. It's counter-intuitive to think we're losing heat because were emitting so much light.

The temperature fluctuations due to EMR in space are glaring due to the lack of an ambient buffering system (atmosphere, et cetera).

Are you gonna get meta about your physics question?

Interesting question. It seems the temperature of deep space is actually related to the heat transferred by the cosmic background radiation. Whatever is put in deep space doesn't get colder than that because of the radiation.

So temperature in a vacuum is related to electromagnetic rays passing through its space, heating whatever mass is in that space.