Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
I think David Chalmers will be considered a genius mind relative to this time,in the future. Understanding the facts that he can only share the info that wont cause problems in his academic career. He would be a dream dinner guest,I'd love to hear the theories that he doesnt share publicly. He understands so much that it seems impossible that he hasnt connected up many of the dots.
Bostrom's Simulation Argument boils down to simulated realities being more common than physical realities, since simulated realities can spawn other simulated realities. The problem with that is, it ignores the possibility of physical realities spawning new physical realities, which has also been hypothesized. (e.g. bubble universes) The Simulation Argument has the same predictive power of the Drake Equation, which is to say none, for much the same reason - we simply lack knowledge about key factors.
Even if physical realities spawn other physical realities it still only modifies the equation significantly if that physical reality creation is demonstrably more frequent in occurrence than digital ones. This seems unlikely if every physical reality spawned is equally capable of spawning larger amounts of digital ones. You are just increasing the total realities, not the odds of finding yourself in a physical one.
@@stephenknox2346 Si las realidades fisicas contienen inteligencias como las de un perro, no crearian realidades virtuales. Por lo que su argumento SI aumenta las probabilidades de aparecer en una realidad física
In video games it requires a physical reality outside of the digital simulation for freedom and consciousness in the game. A parallel to the manner in which a human with a controller allows for freedom in a game would be that there is a non-physical world or reality outside the “simulation” we call Creation or our reality. The religious perspective of a spiritual reality or souls being necessary for freedom and consciousness is parallel to a person with a mind outside the game controlling the virtual avatar within it. Miracles aren’t glitches. They’re momentary cheat codes.
The tv show Black Mirror has convinced me that creating simulated consciousness or being able to upload our consciousness into a machine is not something that would be a good thing. Simulated consciousness gives an entity complete control over that consciousness, and that is a terrifying thought.
Is reality a simulation? Those of us who lucid dream travel in to virtual worlds in a simulated body (based on our expectation to have a body and have it clothed). Our body is lying in our bed but our waking consciousness is in other realities that either already exist, created by other dreamers or we are creating it on the fly (less likely because my imagination would need to create entire cities and even planets). Lucid dreamers sit in restaurants, eat and drink and have sex. It is indistinguishable from waking reality. To the point that I have to reality check to make sure I am in a dream. I push my fingers in to a table and if it penetrate it I know zips a dream. So we may operate similarly in this 3D reality. After all, our brain creates the world around us based on feedback from our environment. We don’t really know what anything actually looks like. It could be data for all we know.
I think the "exact ancestor" idea is a bit of a fuzzy (or multi polar) idea anyway. Assuming a deterministic universe you could run loads of simulations just to find the correct initial conditions/physics variables of your universe. If you assume a with important non-deterministic charecterisics universe simulations (for science) quickly lose value(until you know your own initial conditions and variables) due to true randomness creating too much noise. One way that they could be usefull is if your goal is to achieve an exact ancestor simulation so you constantly play with variables in order to learn a missing puzzle piece of physics in your own world. Another possibility is if you know an extremely high amount about your own universe and are wanting to run an oracle program of sorts and human are just a side show on a backwater world. There's no reason to believe humans are the main character in a simulation anyway
Thank you for the high quality conversations! I am DEEPLY skeptical that code can be conscious, regardless of the advancement and complexity. Question if it is possible to create conscious agents in the future in a medium other than what current biology entails won’t they simply be additional examples of consciousness not simulations?
Our brains are effectively physical substrate and analog code. There’s no reason in principle that carbon is the only material that can run that code, or that many entities couldn’t be containerized on a single substrate. The question for me is what if any non human architectures permit consciousness
@@JP-vx2sr I agree, but a brain made of whatever substrate seems very different from consciousness being produced by digital code. I think the “Simulation” relies upon making whatever number of the smallest “brains” possible on whatever substrate and then providing said brain a simulated “reality”. Thank you for the reply! 🤓
@@williamonate3172 it wouldn’t be code that makes up consciousness. Under the current paradigm, code is an abstract representation of interactions between locations in memory, and processors, memory, and storage are physical stuff/substrate. Code is just a set of instructions determining how these physical things interact. If we were in a simulation, our “brains” would still be made of real stuff at the base layer. No guarantee that the computational mechanism would have contiguous groupings of substrate for each mind as our brains currently do, but this seems inessential to consciousness. IMO what matters is the architecture. We don’t know what about the human brain makes it conscious, but even without that knowledge you can clone the architecture (with a not yet invented imaging device that can map brains down to subatomic particles) and virtualize it and everything about the human brain will have been *functionally* preserved. We’re likely centuries away from this technology, but once it exists i would believe these minds to be not only conscious but also human.
@@JP-vx2sr thanks again for taking the time to write a detailed response! I think I am understanding the points you made. Question why does the necessity of an individual base substrate for each consciousness seem not essential? My apologies if I keep asking you redundant questions that are simply emblematic of my ignorance on the topic!
@@williamonate3172 another way to think of it is imagine that you had a bunch of neurons in your brain that were interspersed between all the other neurons. These extra neurons all form a complete brain, but they don't make contact with your brain. It's just there in the in between space. There would be two brains in your head, one would be yours, the other would be some other brain. No reason to think you wouldn't be conscious in this scenario imo. Now imagine that there are extra neurons inserted between every neuronal connection in your brain, and their sole purpose is to act as repeaters. They don't do anything special themselves, they just pass on the signal they get to the next neuron it's going to. In this example, it's physically a part of your brain, but the "functional" parts of your brain are no longer contiguous. Every connection remains, but the functional bits aren't contiguous. They are logically contiguous, but not physically contiguous. There's a parallel to schematics here. Circuit board schematics are often drawn by logical relationship, but the physical arrangement is typically different. There's no exact reason the capacitor and the chip must be right next to each other physically, they just need to be connected by a trace. But on the schematic it shows they are right next to each other. Here, the point is to show the functional relationship in simplest terms, but also real terms. Functional is real, and not dependent on 1:1 spatial correlation. The traces/wires form a contiguous relationship, just not a spatially contiguous relationship. And still the circuit works. Similarly, you can have a substrate with transistors that act as neurons for your brain all scattered randomly throughout the substrate. They're all wired up "contiguously", but your brain's neurons wouldn't be spatially contiguous. To not be conscious in this scenario, there would have to be something special about physical proximity (nevermind the speed limitations). Just my intuition here, but i suspect proximity of discrete computational units is not a necessary ingredient of Consciousness.
I am working with Tom Campbell to test the Simulation Hypothesis through physics experiments related to the double slit experiment. Tom argues that non physical consciousness created the simulation, not more evolved physical beings. Just as Master Chief was not created by more advanced computer characters, but by beings far beyond its own realm.
I think a really good question is: What is the difference between computation and mechanics? The main difference between AI consciousness and human consciousness is that one is computational and one is mechanical. Is there something important about the fact that actual electricity is leaping between my neurons vs. bits 'simulating' electricity leaping between neurons? I think the missing key is the fact that we can't simulate quantum mechanics. My thesis is that to get consciousness to work digitally, we have to be able to simulate the quantum. If we could, (which we can't right now) then we would have the 'brick and mortar' of reality with which to simulate consciousness. I wonder what David would say about that idea?
“Computational” and “mechanical” are essentially the same thing. Human consciousness isn’t mechanical. As long as you continue to think in physical / materialist terms, you won’t ever get to the answer. Check out Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup for the side of this debate you’re not considering.
@@filmjazz Only if you believe in idealism, which I'm not sure I do. I've studied both of them. Don't just assume lack of knowledge, people may know more than you think. You seem convinced by them, but there still is no proof of their claims.
I have deep skepticism about our ability to create something that is conscious. I think it more likely that something, out of it's sophisticated programming, just seems to be. I'm also skeptical consciousness came about as an evolutionary need. I realize where that leads me, but nevertheless... my view on it.
Right, I always wonder why people who understand evolution always think that all mutations that survive have an actual benefit. Once the offspring survives and goes on to have other offspring, the fate of the original being is irrelevant. So male-pattern baldness is associated with higher testosterone levels, so it makes sense that males with higher T have more success in breeding. But once they're past their mid-twenties, they start to lose their hair and become less attractive to females. The baldness (bad) is connected to the T (good), but since it happens after the offspring, it doesn't matter whether it's ultimately good for the man or not.
For someone who has actually done simulations, the Simulation hypothesis smells of BS, for two related reasons: 1. Contrary to the claim, a simulation always requires more effort than the real thing, *per degree of freedom*, i.e., per variable that can actually change. Your simulation device needs at least one physical degree of freedom to represent the variable, and then the overhead to connect it to the other variables, do statistics etc. Why are simulations still useful? Because they dramatically cut down on degrees of freedom, usually representing systems that consist of 10^23 or more particles by a couple of conventient numbers that are of interest to the one running the simulation. However, the evidence is strong that this is not what is happening in the world we live in. The closer we look, the more detail we find - down to sub-nanometer and sub-nanosecond timescales; and the farther we look, the more stuff we see - up to billions of light-years, mind-boggling numbers of galaxies that have been ticking away mindlessly for billions of years. That's *way too much* for a simulation to contain. 2. Also, *why bother*? We do simulations to learn about isolated aspects of reality that interest us. Everything else is stripped away, not only because it would be too much work, but also because it would dilute the understanding we gain from the simulation. If we throw a million components together, and they do the same thing as the thing we're simulating, we still don't understand it. On the other hand, if we're throwing five or ten componentents together, and they still replicate the interesting behavior of the original made of millions, NOW we're talking. Again, our universe is made of billions of things.
Yeah, the amount of processing power it would take to simulate a universe indistinguishable from reality is mind boggling. And if you are in base reality it would grow exponentially as your simulated universe spawns even more simulated universes. All those simulated universes must be ultimately processed by the computer in base reality. There is just no way that’s possible. Unless the simulation is tricking us 🤷♂️
No-one has come up with any decent argument that it is even possible that consciousness could arise from the right sort of computation, or how that might happen: that's why "the hard problem" is hard. As far as all our experience tells us, consciousness is never found except in close association with the right sort of brain, which is first and foremost a physical organ, and only derivatively - by a process of interpretation - a computational device (which is a way of saying that to interpret it as a computational device, a mind is needed). It is striking that the leap of faith required to take the idea that we might be living in a computer simulation seriously is not generally recognised, though some have discerned in it a sort of "theism for atheists".
imagine providing that chicken with additional brain cells until it understands reflection. if we did something similar to our own brains, god knows what we might come to realize? we might even understand conciousness itself.
We can make simulations...so I think any being able to create our simulation would ensure we would not be able to create simulations and thereby inevitably begin to question our own reality. Maybe if millions did DMT at once, sending millions to the Elves simultaneously. Possibly they could just say, ok, here's the deal and reveal the whole reason for everything to all of us at once.
Sure, but only if it matters, right? If NPC's in my game suddenly started to question their existence, it doesn't matter to me because they can't ever prove it to themselves. I don't think they would care about our questions.
Physical matter is simulated out of quantum particles. The simulation doesn't have to be created by humans. The whole physical universe is actually made out of tiny particles that have no weight or mass. The physical reality that we experience is certainly simulated beyond possible doubt. What sort of simulation is this? Is our base reality a reality like ours? Or is this all simulated from higher dimensions of conciousness? How cant this be simulated?
Why would it matter? Do our dogs know that they're pets rather than the descendants of domesticated wolves? If they're happy, why does it matter whether they're domesticated. I understand why some people find this stuff fascinated, but to me, it's really boring. What if our entire universe is actually an electron in a single atom of a rubber ducky? There are plenty of theories you can posit that are impossible definitely to disprove. So what?
How do you explain frozen birds and planes in mid air or a broom or a tree 1000 feet in the sky just floating or people going threw soild objects or just appearing along with animals or a squril coming up out of a solid road it's a insane video
@@mythsarereality7000 no but these things u can. Tell ain't fake by who people in video react or how people gather around trying to figure out why that bird is frozen
@@DubDTube It's escapism. Society is littered with that idea so we will have professionals that will entertain the ideas... mainly because they are also in the escapism mindset.
@@fearlessway I get your stance, ya, we have grid locked the globe, no more frontiers, and dismantled religious belief in afterlife, but still, singularity is coming, consider tech advancement from your grandfather's age till now. Inwards may be the future.
@@Theyungcity23 It's a cope out. That there is no reason to take life seriously because it's just a simulation. It's just like religious people who think life is only n gods hands, they don't need to worry.
Apreciando a una mujer tan hermosa. 2:2 sentadillas son unos HOTBABY.Uno muchas y un buen ejercicio. 5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world losj mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer
![Human Mind: Into the Unknown with Richard Dawkins [S3 Ep.13]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AUwBinbBi-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![Is Matt Taibbi a Right-Winger? [S3 Ep.4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-bqyk7fJWtM/mqdefault.jpg)
Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Excessive number of ads make this nearly unwatchable. All of your videos are over-commercialized and it’s disrespectful to your viewers. Unsubscribed
My favorite philosopher
I think David Chalmers will be considered a genius mind relative to this time,in the future.
Understanding the facts that he can only share the info that wont cause problems in his academic career. He would be a dream dinner guest,I'd love to hear the theories that he doesnt share publicly.
He understands so much that it seems impossible that he hasnt connected up many of the dots.
I just found this channel, yay! Thank you! 🍬
My question is what difference would it make? Could I break out into some different reality? If not why should I care?
Amen. Who cares?
Bostrom's Simulation Argument boils down to simulated realities being more common than physical realities, since simulated realities can spawn other simulated realities.
The problem with that is, it ignores the possibility of physical realities spawning new physical realities, which has also been hypothesized. (e.g. bubble universes)
The Simulation Argument has the same predictive power of the Drake Equation, which is to say none, for much the same reason - we simply lack knowledge about key factors.
Even if physical realities spawn other physical realities it still only modifies the equation significantly if that physical reality creation is demonstrably more frequent in occurrence than digital ones. This seems unlikely if every physical reality spawned is equally capable of spawning larger amounts of digital ones. You are just increasing the total realities, not the odds of finding yourself in a physical one.
@@stephenknox2346 Si las realidades fisicas contienen inteligencias como las de un perro, no crearian realidades virtuales. Por lo que su argumento SI aumenta las probabilidades de aparecer en una realidad física
In video games it requires a physical reality outside of the digital simulation for freedom and consciousness in the game. A parallel to the manner in which a human with a controller allows for freedom in a game would be that there is a non-physical world or reality outside the “simulation” we call Creation or our reality.
The religious perspective of a spiritual reality or souls being necessary for freedom and consciousness is parallel to a person with a mind outside the game controlling the virtual avatar within it.
Miracles aren’t glitches. They’re momentary cheat codes.
Just shared this with my 6 year old. Really good stuff. Ever think of doing a “ smart” kids show?
The tv show Black Mirror has convinced me that creating simulated consciousness or being able to upload our consciousness into a machine is not something that would be a good thing. Simulated consciousness gives an entity complete control over that consciousness, and that is a terrifying thought.
Came here because you mentioned the 24% percent chance of us being a simulation on Joe rogans podcast.
Is reality a simulation?
Those of us who lucid dream travel in to virtual worlds in a simulated body (based on our expectation to have a body and have it clothed). Our body is lying in our bed but our waking consciousness is in other realities that either already exist, created by other dreamers or we are creating it on the fly (less likely because my imagination would need to create entire cities and even planets). Lucid dreamers sit in restaurants, eat and drink and have sex. It is indistinguishable from waking reality. To the point that I have to reality check to make sure I am in a dream. I push my fingers in to a table and if it penetrate it I know zips a dream. So we may operate similarly in this 3D reality. After all, our brain creates the world around us based on feedback from our environment. We don’t really know what anything actually looks like. It could be data for all we know.
I think the "exact ancestor" idea is a bit of a fuzzy (or multi polar) idea anyway. Assuming a deterministic universe you could run loads of simulations just to find the correct initial conditions/physics variables of your universe. If you assume a with important non-deterministic charecterisics universe simulations (for science) quickly lose value(until you know your own initial conditions and variables) due to true randomness creating too much noise.
One way that they could be usefull is if your goal is to achieve an exact ancestor simulation so you constantly play with variables in order to learn a missing puzzle piece of physics in your own world.
Another possibility is if you know an extremely high amount about your own universe and are wanting to run an oracle program of sorts and human are just a side show on a backwater world. There's no reason to believe humans are the main character in a simulation anyway
Thank you for the high quality conversations! I am DEEPLY skeptical that code can be conscious, regardless of the advancement and complexity. Question if it is possible to create conscious agents in the future in a medium other than what current biology entails won’t they simply be additional examples of consciousness not simulations?
Our brains are effectively physical substrate and analog code. There’s no reason in principle that carbon is the only material that can run that code, or that many entities couldn’t be containerized on a single substrate. The question for me is what if any non human architectures permit consciousness
@@JP-vx2sr I agree, but a brain made of whatever substrate seems very different from consciousness being produced by digital code. I think the “Simulation” relies upon making whatever number of the smallest “brains” possible on whatever substrate and then providing said brain a simulated “reality”. Thank you for the reply! 🤓
@@williamonate3172 it wouldn’t be code that makes up consciousness. Under the current paradigm, code is an abstract representation of interactions between locations in memory, and processors, memory, and storage are physical stuff/substrate. Code is just a set of instructions determining how these physical things interact. If we were in a simulation, our “brains” would still be made of real stuff at the base layer. No guarantee that the computational mechanism would have contiguous groupings of substrate for each mind as our brains currently do, but this seems inessential to consciousness. IMO what matters is the architecture. We don’t know what about the human brain makes it conscious, but even without that knowledge you can clone the architecture (with a not yet invented imaging device that can map brains down to subatomic particles) and virtualize it and everything about the human brain will have been *functionally* preserved. We’re likely centuries away from this technology, but once it exists i would believe these minds to be not only conscious but also human.
@@JP-vx2sr thanks again for taking the time to write a detailed response! I think I am understanding the points you made. Question why does the necessity of an individual base substrate for each consciousness seem not essential? My apologies if I keep asking you redundant questions that are simply emblematic of my ignorance on the topic!
@@williamonate3172 another way to think of it is imagine that you had a bunch of neurons in your brain that were interspersed between all the other neurons. These extra neurons all form a complete brain, but they don't make contact with your brain. It's just there in the in between space. There would be two brains in your head, one would be yours, the other would be some other brain. No reason to think you wouldn't be conscious in this scenario imo. Now imagine that there are extra neurons inserted between every neuronal connection in your brain, and their sole purpose is to act as repeaters. They don't do anything special themselves, they just pass on the signal they get to the next neuron it's going to. In this example, it's physically a part of your brain, but the "functional" parts of your brain are no longer contiguous. Every connection remains, but the functional bits aren't contiguous. They are logically contiguous, but not physically contiguous. There's a parallel to schematics here. Circuit board schematics are often drawn by logical relationship, but the physical arrangement is typically different. There's no exact reason the capacitor and the chip must be right next to each other physically, they just need to be connected by a trace. But on the schematic it shows they are right next to each other. Here, the point is to show the functional relationship in simplest terms, but also real terms. Functional is real, and not dependent on 1:1 spatial correlation.
The traces/wires form a contiguous relationship, just not a spatially contiguous relationship. And still the circuit works. Similarly, you can have a substrate with transistors that act as neurons for your brain all scattered randomly throughout the substrate. They're all wired up "contiguously", but your brain's neurons wouldn't be spatially contiguous. To not be conscious in this scenario, there would have to be something special about physical proximity (nevermind the speed limitations). Just my intuition here, but i suspect proximity of discrete computational units is not a necessary ingredient of Consciousness.
Short answer, yes. Long, accurate and reasonably detailed long story, to be written.
You can change your answer to "no" and your statenent is still rational valid, this means that it means nothing...
@@ikik3406 sure, it can mean "nothing". Just keep in mind that nothing, even if unknown, IS something ;)
Alot of words for saying exactly nothing... Waist of energy
@@ikik3406 what's the outcome you're expecting out of this conversation: to educate me, or for me to prove something valid to you? What is it?
@@itsaprilsfool not expecting any outcome... I do wonder what comes next...
I am working with Tom Campbell to test the Simulation Hypothesis through physics experiments related to the double slit experiment. Tom argues that non physical consciousness created the simulation, not more evolved physical beings. Just as Master Chief was not created by more advanced computer characters, but by beings far beyond its own realm.
I think a really good question is: What is the difference between computation and mechanics?
The main difference between AI consciousness and human consciousness is that one is computational and one is mechanical. Is there something important about the fact that actual electricity is leaping between my neurons vs. bits 'simulating' electricity leaping between neurons? I think the missing key is the fact that we can't simulate quantum mechanics.
My thesis is that to get consciousness to work digitally, we have to be able to simulate the quantum. If we could, (which we can't right now) then we would have the 'brick and mortar' of reality with which to simulate consciousness.
I wonder what David would say about that idea?
“Computational” and “mechanical” are essentially the same thing. Human consciousness isn’t mechanical. As long as you continue to think in physical / materialist terms, you won’t ever get to the answer. Check out Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup for the side of this debate you’re not considering.
@@filmjazz Only if you believe in idealism, which I'm not sure I do. I've studied both of them.
Don't just assume lack of knowledge, people may know more than you think. You seem convinced by them, but there still is no proof of their claims.
I have deep skepticism about our ability to create something that is conscious. I think it more likely that something, out of it's sophisticated programming, just seems to be. I'm also skeptical consciousness came about as an evolutionary need. I realize where that leads me, but nevertheless... my view on it.
Right, I always wonder why people who understand evolution always think that all mutations that survive have an actual benefit. Once the offspring survives and goes on to have other offspring, the fate of the original being is irrelevant. So male-pattern baldness is associated with higher testosterone levels, so it makes sense that males with higher T have more success in breeding. But once they're past their mid-twenties, they start to lose their hair and become less attractive to females. The baldness (bad) is connected to the T (good), but since it happens after the offspring, it doesn't matter whether it's ultimately good for the man or not.
For someone who has actually done simulations, the Simulation hypothesis smells of BS, for two related reasons:
1. Contrary to the claim, a simulation always requires more effort than the real thing, *per degree of freedom*, i.e., per variable that can actually change. Your simulation device needs at least one physical degree of freedom to represent the variable, and then the overhead to connect it to the other variables, do statistics etc.
Why are simulations still useful? Because they dramatically cut down on degrees of freedom, usually representing systems that consist of 10^23 or more particles by a couple of conventient numbers that are of interest to the one running the simulation.
However, the evidence is strong that this is not what is happening in the world we live in. The closer we look, the more detail we find - down to sub-nanometer and sub-nanosecond timescales; and the farther we look, the more stuff we see - up to billions of light-years, mind-boggling numbers of galaxies that have been ticking away mindlessly for billions of years. That's *way too much* for a simulation to contain.
2. Also, *why bother*? We do simulations to learn about isolated aspects of reality that interest us. Everything else is stripped away, not only because it would be too much work, but also because it would dilute the understanding we gain from the simulation. If we throw a million components together, and they do the same thing as the thing we're simulating, we still don't understand it. On the other hand, if we're throwing five or ten componentents together, and they still replicate the interesting behavior of the original made of millions, NOW we're talking.
Again, our universe is made of billions of things.
Yeah, the amount of processing power it would take to simulate a universe indistinguishable from reality is mind boggling. And if you are in base reality it would grow exponentially as your simulated universe spawns even more simulated universes. All those simulated universes must be ultimately processed by the computer in base reality. There is just no way that’s possible.
Unless the simulation is tricking us 🤷♂️
The real world could be millions of years in the future even though the simulated world is in though we think it's the 21st century
No-one has come up with any decent argument that it is even possible that consciousness could arise from the right sort of computation, or how that might happen: that's why "the hard problem" is hard. As far as all our experience tells us, consciousness is never found except in close association with the right sort of brain, which is first and foremost a physical organ, and only derivatively - by a process of interpretation - a computational device (which is a way of saying that to interpret it as a computational device, a mind is needed).
It is striking that the leap of faith required to take the idea that we might be living in a computer simulation seriously is not generally recognised, though some have discerned in it a sort of "theism for atheists".
What is the bizarre hairy thing in the bottom right corner of Chalmer's room?
What makes you think it’s “hairy?” It looks like a pile of cables to me.
Check out Tom Campbell’s explanation:
th-cam.com/video/kko-hVA-8IU/w-d-xo.html
imagine providing that chicken with additional brain cells until it understands reflection.
if we did something similar to our own brains, god knows what we might come to realize? we might even understand conciousness itself.
We can make simulations...so I think any being able to create our simulation would ensure we would not be able to create simulations and thereby inevitably begin to question our own reality.
Maybe if millions did DMT at once, sending millions to the Elves simultaneously. Possibly they could just say, ok, here's the deal and reveal the whole reason for everything to all of us at once.
Sure, but only if it matters, right? If NPC's in my game suddenly started to question their existence, it doesn't matter to me because they can't ever prove it to themselves. I don't think they would care about our questions.
Physical matter is simulated out of quantum particles.
The simulation doesn't have to be created by humans.
The whole physical universe is actually made out of tiny particles that have no weight or mass.
The physical reality that we experience is certainly simulated beyond possible doubt.
What sort of simulation is this?
Is our base reality a reality like ours?
Or is this all simulated from higher dimensions of conciousness?
How cant this be simulated?
Why would it matter? Do our dogs know that they're pets rather than the descendants of domesticated wolves? If they're happy, why does it matter whether they're domesticated.
I understand why some people find this stuff fascinated, but to me, it's really boring. What if our entire universe is actually an electron in a single atom of a rubber ducky? There are plenty of theories you can posit that are impossible definitely to disprove. So what?
Is reality a simulation?
If you define reality and simulation the same then yes, if you define them differently then no.
NO! :)
Ad model is okay but every 2 minutes. Braaah
How do you explain frozen birds and planes in mid air or a broom or a tree 1000 feet in the sky just floating or people going threw soild objects or just appearing along with animals or a squril coming up out of a solid road it's a insane video
What are you talking about
@@jordip1995 these are videos of things that happen on earth how do u explain that as not a glitch in a computer system
@@jakemay814 You believe everything on the internet?
@@mythsarereality7000 no but these things u can. Tell ain't fake by who people in video react or how people gather around trying to figure out why that bird is frozen
@@jakemay814 You a smooth troll ngl 🙄
Then on other hand ailen telling human to take care our planet stop pollution and watch out for a.i
No We are not.
It's the desire of people to escape reality that gives weight to thinking we live n a simulation.
MMmaybe some people, but perhaps others are content lying in their dream pods getting dope hits from the singularity... 😂
@@DubDTube It's escapism.
Society is littered with that idea so we will have professionals that will entertain the ideas... mainly because they are also in the escapism mindset.
@@fearlessway I get your stance, ya, we have grid locked the globe, no more frontiers, and dismantled religious belief in afterlife, but still, singularity is coming, consider tech advancement from your grandfather's age till now. Inwards may be the future.
How is it escapism? The stakes of everything would be exactly the same.
@@Theyungcity23 It's a cope out. That there is no reason to take life seriously because it's just a simulation.
It's just like religious people who think life is only n gods hands, they don't need to worry.
Such a nonproductive topic.
Apreciando a una mujer tan hermosa. 2:2 sentadillas son unos HOTBABY.Uno muchas y un buen ejercicio. 5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world losj mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer