On whether we live in a computer simulation and God’s existence

[tafan2]

Even our bodies consist of 43% microbes and bacteria, we aren’t aware of that either.

From the NIH:

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body

Genome sequencing creates first reference data for microbes living with healthy adults.

www.nih.gov

The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body’s mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health.

 

[tafan2]

What does it mean the “our experience of reality is a simulation”. Reality is not, but the way we experience it is? Doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Lee1]

Good day.
I’m saying that our brain is experiencing stimuli but not all available stimuli because we aren’t equipped for that and furthermore our mind translates what we are experiencing into packets of information which relate to existing packets of stored information, thus introducing a bias which is applied by our minds to the world around us.

We are then experiencing something other than reality and like projected film,on screen we aren’t seeing the original we are seeing a projection, if there’s fluff on the lens it’ll spoil the picture. Yes?

So our experiences are like reality but not reality, they’re subjective reality with organismal bias. My opinion is that God is the only one who actual experiences reality.

 

[Lee1]

I read a BBC article which said that we are 43% microbes and bacteria and stuff other than human. I read it, this isn’t my opinion.

I’ll try to find it for you. It’s not particularly Important anyway.

Edit: ok here is the article, though there is another stating the same thing. I got the figure wrong above but actually my figure was lower! It’s a bullet point and you need to skim down a way to find it.

Probiotics labelled 'quite useless'

A study suggests "good bacteria" have little or no effect inside the body.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[tafan2]

Two different ways of measuring. One by mass and the other by cell count.

 

[Lee1]

Yay! So were both right, right?

Now, what on Earth were we talking about?

Edit: here’s an example of our natural tendency for bias. Have you ever noticed how when you’re trying to explain something to someone they suddenly exclaim “ oh, that’s like…such and such.” We tend to try to understand things by comparing to existing understanding, it’s quicker of course and takes less effort, and may be almost correct too. But since many things are perhaps unique it may not be an exact fit.

Anyway it’s a bias, and relies on our having fully understood that which we are likening it to in the first place.
Just some thoughts.

 

[tafan2]

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I do understand your point. In a sense (pardon the pun) our senses are just recreating a perception of reality. Our ears react to the multitude of sound waves through the air, turn those into synaptic impulses which travel through our nervous system and then the brain assembles those into the sounds we “hear”. Same with photon waves striking our eyes and being eventually turned into images. Its all a recreated perception, not that different than taking sound waves, running them through a transducer and transmitting them via electrical or radio waves.
Our brain is not simulating the reality around us, it is simply creating a perception of that reality. At a physical level, it is certainly true, I would just argue with the word simulation. But…

This is the problem of modern day through that science tells us everything about reality. There is no need for meta-physics, and certainly not religion, we just need to understand the makeup of our universe better. But I do not buy into that at all. Yes the cells in my body might be 57% non-human, but that does not matter as to the reality of my humanity. There is no simulation, or false perception, involved. Simply because I do not see the photon waves as they actually travel through space does not mean I am not seeing the computer in front of me as I type. I would argue that the more science explains to us the complete structure of a dog, the more accurate it appears our perception is: a dog is a dog, it is not a cat. At a DNA level they might be 90% the same, but we have always been able to perceive to very different species.

 

[tafan2]

Yes, I think that it may indeed be possible to prove, to a high degree of certainty, that we’re living in a simulation. In fact I’m hopeful that someday scientists will be able to do just that.

If I may, why are you hopeful we will be shown to be living inside a simulation?

 

[Richca]

Here’s an interesting fact to help illustrate this point. The only part of the human eye that actually sees things clearly is the fovea centralis. Half of the nerve fibers in the eye are located in this region. The rest of the nerve fibers are spread out across the retina. What we don’t realize, is just how small the fovea centralis is. Extend your arm straight out in front of you and point your thumb up. What the fovea centralis sees is only the size of your thumbnail. The rest of your vision is blurry.

Your eye must be able to focus a lot better than mine. If I extend my arm and point my thumb up, close my eyes than open with the intention of focusing on the thumb, I see my thumb, thumbnail, hand, and arm. Although if I focus on the thumb or thumbnail, I may not see my arm as clearly as when if I focused on looking at my arm and it certainly doesn’t mean my arm is an illusion which I can see even if I focus on my thumb and even more so by moving my pupil down my arm so to speak. This has to do with the pupil’s field of vision such as at close range and the distance of an object and its size away from the eye which are sort of proportional. For example, we can’t see the whole of a large tree standing right next to it without moving our pupils or head around. However, if we stand back far enough from the tree, we can see the whole tree.

 

[Richca]

But your brain has a few tricks that it uses to fill in the missing information and make it look like it sees things clearly. It uses flitting eye movements, stored information and past experience to fill in the missing information. That’s what makes optical illusions work, because the brain is making assumptions about how to fill in the missing information.

But this is true, not only for vision, but for every aspect of the human conscious experience. The brain makes assumptions based upon limited information and past experience, about how to interpret things. So when someone mentions the word God for example, the brain automatically makes assumptions about what’s true about God, and what’s not. That’s just what the brain does. It creates a coherent experience out of insufficient information. And just like with the eyes, the brain is prone to creating illusions. To seeing things that aren’t there.

Assuming that the organs are not defective, the five external senses do not create illusions. They only receive impressions from without, namely, the external world around us. It is in this sense that it is said that the senses do not lie. For example, a mirage that the eyes see is not an illusion to the eyes but it is what is being impressed externally on the eyes vision caused by various external physical factors. It is also not the job of the external senses to collate various sense impressions such as vision and sound together. The eyes are for vision and the ears for sound. In other words, the eyes do not know what sound is nor do the ears know what sight, vision, or color is. It is the job of certain interior sense powers of the soul such as the common sense which function through the body or some bodily organ such as the brain to collate the various sense impressions received through the external senses. For example, if we see and hear a dog barking, the common sense collates the sound and sight together so that we experience or perceive the dog barking.

In humans, by the imaginative interior sense power and possibly together with the estimative power, we can form interiorly in the imagination something that has never been seen or impressed on the external senses from without such as a sphinx, mermaid, or golden mountain. Such images in the imagination are illusions in that they have never been seen outside the imagination in the external world or correspond objectively to the external world. Such illusions may also form in the imagination by hallucinogenic drugs. But the imagination cannot form such illusions without first receiving from the external senses objective impressions from the external world.

 

[Richca]

From: Richca
Assuming that the organs are not defective, the five external senses do not create illusions. They only receive impressions from without, namely, the external world around us. It is in this sense that it is said that the senses do not lie

From: lisaandlena
While for the most part our sensory organs simply pass on information to the brain, the brain must then process that information and create a coherent image of the world that that information represents. It’s in this step of the process that the brain uses shortcuts, experiences and assumptions to assimilate that information into a coherent form

It is in this step of the process that I don’t entirely agree with you at least in the way you seem to present it, i.e, the collation in the interior senses and brain of the various sensibles received from the external senses. The collation process you describe could be understood in a certain sense more like closing one’s eyes or stopping up one’s ears and then mentally forming pictures or sounds as it were in the imagination from forms or impressions stored in the sensible memory as well as processing intentions from the estimative power from these stored forms or impressions. I’m not saying that the collation process of what is being received in the present through the external senses may not be sped up so to speak from past experiences and intentions stored in the sensible memory that conform to what is being received in the present by a certain kind of likeness.

But, if one opens one’s eyes than the interior senses need to process what is being received through the eyes or other external senses right now in the present in order that what is known in the knower conforms to the object/s outside the knower. For the present is not the same thing as the past for the present time is something new that hasn’t happened yet. So, in this sense, the interior sense powers in conjunction with various bodily organs such as the brain need to process precisely what is being received in the present and I would agree that by past experiences stored in the sensible memory the common sense and estimative powers of the soul may or do collate the impressions received in the present in a more efficient manner by some sort of conformity or likeness to stored forms or impressions

From: lisaandlena
Basically the mind, as much as it can, manipulates the information to conform to what it expects to see, or what it already believes to be true. Sometimes what it believes to be true, is simply that the other person is wrong

The mind is not the brain if that is what you are referring the brain too. Animals have brains like humans but not a mind. The mind is of a wholly spiritual and immaterial nature consisting in the spiritual faculties or powers of the intellect and will. The intellect collates and knows or understands to a much higher degree such as the very natures in a universal degree whatever the senses or the brain know individually or collectively. But, the intellect’s knowledge is founded on sense knowledge which is first received into the sensible being or animal through the five external senses by objective sensible impressions

 

[tafan2]

To be honest, what I’m hopeful of, is that people will abandon their preconceptions, and accept that they simply don’t know.

Accept that they do not know what?

 

[Richca]

In the linked article from the NCR, Jimmy Akin writes:

"According to the simulation theory, the natural world is made of patterns of information that exist in some unknown computer medium that form simulations of atoms…

So, the only thing the simulation theory would do is add at least one additional layer to creation—i.e., the layer containing the computer in which our natural world exists".

I think he is right in saying that "the only thing the simulation theory would do is add at least one additional layer to creation". I mean if it is posited that there is some layer of information under atoms from which they arise from as it were, what is there preventing positing another layer of information under this layer of information that is proximate to the formation of atoms. And it could be posited that there may be a more remote third layer under this second layer and so on to infinity in which case the simulation theory in this sense explains nothing.

 

[humble_catholic]

Zacheus James Gates the super string theorist shocked Neil degrasse Tyson at this science conference when he said that they found a very special computer code in their equations used to describe our reality in super strong theory promoting Tyson (an agnostic bordering on atheism as he says there is very little evidence of any of god within science ) to say something like this in the video “”you mean there is some programmer out there and we are just expression of his code “”

Watch the video it almost knocked Tyson out of his socks

 

[humble_catholic]

Lisa , I think you would benefit much from some research into ndes or near death experiences . I think it will dramatically change your probably not to probably so on all accounts including the soul and afterlife .

There is a peer reviewed study going on right now in science called the aware 2 study which is basically conscious awareness during cardiac arrest run by agnostic NDE researcher dr Sam Parnia and if successful will shock the WiFi’s if science which the current paradigm is the materialist paradigm .

Parnia about 10-12 years ago was a guest speaker at atheist science conferences like sceptic magazine and up until 8 years ago believed that NDE are illusions caused by the dying brain

116. Dr. Sam Parnia Claims Near Death Experience Probably an Illusion – Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point

skeptiko.com

Like I said, if I was to base everything on the knowledge that I have currently of neuroscience, then the easiest explanation is that this is probably an illusion.”

Fast forward to dec 2017 and Parnia an agnostic says this in a recent interview

https://goop.com/wellness/spirituality/when-is-death-irreversible-a-resuscitation-m-d-explains-why-its-evolving/

“”What the evidence suggests is that the soul, the self, the psyche, whatever you want to call it, does not become annihilated, even though the brain has shut down. This suggests that part of what makes us who we are—a part that is very real—is not produced by the brain. Instead, the brain is acting like a mediator. Like anything that has been undiscovered, because we can’t touch and feel it, we choose to ignore it. The reality, though, is that human thought exists, we communicate through thoughts—so it is a real phenomena. The source of consciousness is undiscovered in the same way that electromagnetic waves have been around for millions of years, but it’s only been recently that we created a device to record them and show them to other people.

So in short, we haven’t got the tools yet, or a machine that’s accurate enough to pick up your thoughts and show them to me. In the next couple of decades, I believe it will be discovered that we continue to exist after death, and that consciousness is in fact an independent entity.””

This is a complete 360 turnaround from his previous sceptical position and his turn around was from
His own research and he has recently said that in some of these ndes the patients report seeing a being they describe as perfect full of light and all loving

Sound like anyone we heard if

 

[IWantGod]

If we live in a computer generated simulation, there is only one way i think that can be true. We would have to be brains hooked up to a machine just like in the film matrix.

But insofar as detecting whether or not we are in a simulation, unless there is some observable glitch or error in the matrix, there would be no way of telling the differences between a simulated event and a natural event because we do not a-prior know the difference. The universe may naturally behave like a computer and yet still not be a simulation.

And going back to observable glitches and errors. If such a a simulation existed it would have to be perfect. And i am not sure that’s possible. Surely some kind of error would have happened by now, unless our memories are being constantly erased.

In any case, while i think it’s fun, it’s not something i take seriously and i think it’s unreasonable to suggest that the mere possibility of it should cause somebody to reevaluate their world-view.

 

[IWantGod]

So this leads us to the first question that we need to ask. Can the brain produce consciousness?

I don’t think a brain does produce the intellect, that is to say that it is not the cause of intentionality because it doesn’t make sense to reduce intentionality to the nature of unintentional causes; the one does not make sense of the other, and the idea that one would come from the other is completely arbitrary. The idea itself is unintelligible. That is not to say i have all the answers from a purely philosophical point of view, but a materialist point of view in principle fails to make intelligible sense of the intellect. However i do believe that there is a functional interdependence between the brain and the intellect insomuch as the brain is what is required in-order for our kind of intentionality to work within the physical universe. And this is to say that we interact with the universe through the functionality of the brain.

For the sake of this discussion lets assume that physical processes arranged in a particular sequence or pattern does produce the “existence” of an intellect for unknown reasons. The fact of the matter is we have only discovered this phenomena in organic systems. That is not to say that it is definitely impossible, assuming that materialism is true, to simulate an intellect. But it would certainly be reasonable to assume that the most likely probability is that the intellect by definition is a biological expression; that is to say the intellect finds it’s expression in biological natures alone.

That is why i think that if there was a simulation, it would require a biological component. Perhaps in the future we will in fact be talking about biological-computers instead of the kind we talk about now.

 

[IWantGod]

Does this really seem like a rational explanation for why reality behaves the way that it does?

You claim that it doesn’t make sense, but that’s about all you have said. It just doesn’t make sense to you.

 

[IWantGod]

Does this really seem like a rational explanation for why reality behaves the way that it does?

No one suggested that Adam and Eve is an explanation for why the universe behaves as it does, so i don’t quite understand what you mean.

That a contingent reality behaves in any particular way, that it doesn’t have to, would require an intelligent cause to determine the nature of the contingent effect, otherwise that it behaves that way at all and produces the qualities that it has is inexplicable.

 

[IWantGod]

So the first cause can’t be intelligent.

So your argument is to simply assert that the first cause can’t be intelligent because it didn’t cause itself?

That doesn’t makes sense.

Also you assert that a necessary being cannot exist without contingent beings, but nothing you have said necessitates this to be true. And the idea is simply unintelligible. You are confusing your relationships with other contingent beings as being applicable to the relationship between necessary existence and unnecessary things. That you cannot play golf without an opponent has no relevance to whether the first cause can exist without the things that it causes.

Firstly nobody is arguing that being any particular thing requires a cause. Rather one is arguing that a contingent being requires a cause including contingent intellects.

Secondly my argument still stands because it identifies the fact that what you are cannot be real unless something has given you that nature to begin with. And since your nature is not a necessary nature or property of necessary existence, it follows that the first cause is causing something to be actual that doesn’t have to exist at all, and that only makes sense if it is intentionally doing so since one cannot argue that your existence has naturally emerged as a property of the first cause, and neither could you exist unless something is determining your nature to be what it is.

In other-words, The uncaused cause is creating a completely new nature distinct from itself, having it’s own rules of behaviour or expression. That requires an intellect in-order to determine those new rules and behaviours and natures.

That a contingent reality behaves in any particular way, that it doesn’t have to , would require an intelligent cause to determine the nature of the contingent effect, otherwise that it behaves that way at all and produces the qualities that it has is inexplicable.