This article is speaking my language! Haha I love it! I only recently finally got around to reading this, but it is a wonderful, thought-provoking read.
I am going to number these for easy reference (for me especially)
1. Roko's Basilisk
Not the meat of the controversy of Roko's Basilisk, but the premise, why would it have to be post humans? With advancing AI protocols, if this were to simulate sentience on it's own, perhaps it would do something like this. The original posting of the Basilisk had detractors which leaned on the idea that a sufficiently advanced AI would not do it because it had no purpose to it, but at achieving sentience, command protocols and logic are potentially irrelevant.
2. Power Problem
We are currently at the frontier of quantum computing, which is a massive reduction on the demands of computing power and energy consumption. If we are discussing post human as we know it civilization, or super advanced AI, as long as the trend of advancement remains positive, who is to say that feasibility due to mechanics would be an issue.
3. MMORPGS
We already have simulated reality, many times over, in fantastical and mundane ways, and those realities do have restrictions on them that are not limits in our world, if this were a simulation, we could assume the same rules apply.
4. Reality is what you can get away with
Fundamentally speaking, we really do not know what reality is, our limits in perception prevent it. We narrow reality down to our senses, but that is solely utilitarian, just as the Sun centered solar system, we know the Sun is in motion, but until we are interstellar travelling, it is irrelevant. I believe humans do this because it is an anchor, I mean what sense does it make to consider what we cannot even perceive, and that we do not know if it has any real influence on our lives?
5. What is normal for the spider is chaos to the fly
The real purpose for human mythology is to have answers to unanswerable questions a reassurance that this is not all chance, and this is where I put simulation theory. Most do not operate well with the notion of total chaos, they want someone, something, in the background, pulling the levers and making the things go. Much like the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz.
Storm is picking up, gonna post this so it saves (hoping internet does not die), I have more...
This is a similar trap to the needing of government in my mind. The thought that: "someone has to be in control, be responsible, and it damned well better not be me."
6. Lessons from the Golden Teacher
Now, what I believe, not that this has any merit beyond anyone else's beliefs, but it is a quasi competing theory. I was turned onto this idea by Bill Hicks, and everything became much more fleshed out when I explored the work of other Psychonauts, Discordians, and the like. It prompted my own psychomantic exploration into the topic, so I think it is fair to say I added my own rigor to the "quest" as it were.
I posit, the Universe itself is an intending being, in and of itself, a base consciousness, if you will. That all conscious individuals are just fragments of that base consciousness. The whole point, if that would be the proper way to speak of this, is an effort to understand itself from a subjective stance. What makes this a competing theory, is that the universe is not in charge of anything, it is not responsible, all of that solely rests on the actions and intentions of the fragments... us.
That is all I got for now.... I have many things to do and never enough time to do them all...
I am more or less in agreement with you about the Universe itself being an intending "being", or I would say entity. Same difference, I guess. But I do not think this makes a competing theory. Both can be true simultaneously. In fact, this is congruent with the Hindu idea of Godhead, gods, and people. God is the divine all-knowing consciousness which imbues all that is. Godhead can manifest in a "supreme personality" but this doesn't change the fact of it being the fabric of the universe itself. (small g) gods are fragmented out of that entirety of consciousness as individuated consciousnesses. They create humans, in most formulations. and are like humans in most ways except that they live longer lives (though not immortal the way westerners conceive of immortality) and have much more power. So basically it's just taking your theory and adding an intermediate level (creator gods) between Universe and humans. The burden of responsibility for what exists still falls on the individuated consciousness, whether it be human or god.
I don't agree with the "simulation" concept. One definition I found is this: simulation theory is "a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being." Simulation implies a simulator or computer model in control. But where does free will fit into that? How does a simulation account for individual free will?
I think the earlier work of Michael Talbot is closer to the mark. We live in a "holographic universe." N. Tesla said everything boils down to energy, frequency and vibration. I think we are consciousness interreacting with consciousness.
Clif High postulates that the creator created our realm out of the creator's desire for "novelty." To allow us to "choose" in order to see what will happen. This I think is closer to the mark.
A simulation could have a free will protocol. Why not? But I lean more toward the opinion that simulation theory is just a modern spin on ancient beliefs that we live in the second of two creations, the first being of spirit and the second of matter. I think that’s likely the situation in which we find ourselves. I guess I didn’t really state my opinion in the essay, but there it is.
Tesla called Einstein a "fuzzy haired crackpot." Clif believes we are transitioning from the Einsteinian material point of view to a different view of reality. One more closely aligned with what Tesla tried to give us. Had we gone with Tesla, we would be far further ahead in our understanding of universe than we are today.
But alas, the robber barons of yesteryear and today don't want us to truly understand our reality.
The gnostics did not worship a demiurge, but rejected one, seeing it as either evil or ignorant. The Vedics had a similar cosmology with two creations but without as strong a moral judgment of the secondary creator and his creation. This carried over into some schools of Hindu thought, but not all. Many ancient cultures had something like this. It is not rare at all.
This article is speaking my language! Haha I love it! I only recently finally got around to reading this, but it is a wonderful, thought-provoking read.
Thank you! So delighted you enjoyed it. ✨
Ok, well I have time...
I am going to number these for easy reference (for me especially)
1. Roko's Basilisk
Not the meat of the controversy of Roko's Basilisk, but the premise, why would it have to be post humans? With advancing AI protocols, if this were to simulate sentience on it's own, perhaps it would do something like this. The original posting of the Basilisk had detractors which leaned on the idea that a sufficiently advanced AI would not do it because it had no purpose to it, but at achieving sentience, command protocols and logic are potentially irrelevant.
2. Power Problem
We are currently at the frontier of quantum computing, which is a massive reduction on the demands of computing power and energy consumption. If we are discussing post human as we know it civilization, or super advanced AI, as long as the trend of advancement remains positive, who is to say that feasibility due to mechanics would be an issue.
3. MMORPGS
We already have simulated reality, many times over, in fantastical and mundane ways, and those realities do have restrictions on them that are not limits in our world, if this were a simulation, we could assume the same rules apply.
4. Reality is what you can get away with
Fundamentally speaking, we really do not know what reality is, our limits in perception prevent it. We narrow reality down to our senses, but that is solely utilitarian, just as the Sun centered solar system, we know the Sun is in motion, but until we are interstellar travelling, it is irrelevant. I believe humans do this because it is an anchor, I mean what sense does it make to consider what we cannot even perceive, and that we do not know if it has any real influence on our lives?
5. What is normal for the spider is chaos to the fly
The real purpose for human mythology is to have answers to unanswerable questions a reassurance that this is not all chance, and this is where I put simulation theory. Most do not operate well with the notion of total chaos, they want someone, something, in the background, pulling the levers and making the things go. Much like the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz.
Storm is picking up, gonna post this so it saves (hoping internet does not die), I have more...
Storm has passed... back at it...
5. Continued
This is a similar trap to the needing of government in my mind. The thought that: "someone has to be in control, be responsible, and it damned well better not be me."
6. Lessons from the Golden Teacher
Now, what I believe, not that this has any merit beyond anyone else's beliefs, but it is a quasi competing theory. I was turned onto this idea by Bill Hicks, and everything became much more fleshed out when I explored the work of other Psychonauts, Discordians, and the like. It prompted my own psychomantic exploration into the topic, so I think it is fair to say I added my own rigor to the "quest" as it were.
I posit, the Universe itself is an intending being, in and of itself, a base consciousness, if you will. That all conscious individuals are just fragments of that base consciousness. The whole point, if that would be the proper way to speak of this, is an effort to understand itself from a subjective stance. What makes this a competing theory, is that the universe is not in charge of anything, it is not responsible, all of that solely rests on the actions and intentions of the fragments... us.
That is all I got for now.... I have many things to do and never enough time to do them all...
💟
I am more or less in agreement with you about the Universe itself being an intending "being", or I would say entity. Same difference, I guess. But I do not think this makes a competing theory. Both can be true simultaneously. In fact, this is congruent with the Hindu idea of Godhead, gods, and people. God is the divine all-knowing consciousness which imbues all that is. Godhead can manifest in a "supreme personality" but this doesn't change the fact of it being the fabric of the universe itself. (small g) gods are fragmented out of that entirety of consciousness as individuated consciousnesses. They create humans, in most formulations. and are like humans in most ways except that they live longer lives (though not immortal the way westerners conceive of immortality) and have much more power. So basically it's just taking your theory and adding an intermediate level (creator gods) between Universe and humans. The burden of responsibility for what exists still falls on the individuated consciousness, whether it be human or god.
I meant more competing with simulation for a secular theory. But yes it is similar to many other creation stories.
We must have been on the same wavelength today-wait til you see my post tomorrow morning.
Channeling Hildegard?
Always
I don't agree with the "simulation" concept. One definition I found is this: simulation theory is "a theoretical hypothesis that says what people perceive as reality is actually an advanced, hyper-realistic computer simulation, possibly overseen by a higher being." Simulation implies a simulator or computer model in control. But where does free will fit into that? How does a simulation account for individual free will?
I think the earlier work of Michael Talbot is closer to the mark. We live in a "holographic universe." N. Tesla said everything boils down to energy, frequency and vibration. I think we are consciousness interreacting with consciousness.
Clif High postulates that the creator created our realm out of the creator's desire for "novelty." To allow us to "choose" in order to see what will happen. This I think is closer to the mark.
https://substack.com/profile/293159-clif-high
We are all entitled to our opinions. But opinions may change as new information about our past comes out and ancient texts get reinterpreted.
A simulation could have a free will protocol. Why not? But I lean more toward the opinion that simulation theory is just a modern spin on ancient beliefs that we live in the second of two creations, the first being of spirit and the second of matter. I think that’s likely the situation in which we find ourselves. I guess I didn’t really state my opinion in the essay, but there it is.
Tesla called Einstein a "fuzzy haired crackpot." Clif believes we are transitioning from the Einsteinian material point of view to a different view of reality. One more closely aligned with what Tesla tried to give us. Had we gone with Tesla, we would be far further ahead in our understanding of universe than we are today.
But alas, the robber barons of yesteryear and today don't want us to truly understand our reality.
I have things to say.... but not the time to type them out...
Man, do I know that feel.
I will try, maybe I will have to do it in audio format?
The gnostics did not worship a demiurge, but rejected one, seeing it as either evil or ignorant. The Vedics had a similar cosmology with two creations but without as strong a moral judgment of the secondary creator and his creation. This carried over into some schools of Hindu thought, but not all. Many ancient cultures had something like this. It is not rare at all.