https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4593170


Even though there were some theories disproving this recently, I believe this is closest to the truth.

I don't see much difference between the idea that everything we perceive is a computer simulation, and the idea that it's all guided by a god, or that heaven is the real world, and Earth only the "test field."

I decided for myself, to live my life as though what I perceive, may AS WELL be what's real and important. Particularly since I really do bleed and feel pain when the "simulation" includes cuts and bruises.

Exactly how I live my life. Just trying to make sense in a senseless place.

Idc who or how we have come to be & not trying to bring religion into this.

Everything is our perception by our consciousness and this article echoes closest to my thoughts of what could be true.

Sorry pumpi for some reason I can't read the link ., it takes ages to load . Will try to go direct to the source to view the article .

Oh dang it, sorry Idk any other way to post the link.

Were you able to read it eventually?

It's basically suggesting we are living in a simulation, linking our consciousness & our perceptions.

Well, I didn't read it. So they're saying we are SIMS?
..

Not really

We have free will, that's why our world is in the state it's in.

Maybe more like matrix, but no body elsewhere. We are energy that's clear. Intelligent energy.

several of today's prominent scientists are discussing this new idealism. I've done my best to follow all views on this to see if anyone is concluding to this newest possible theory. but what I have figured out is rather striking. they have all mentioned the higher intelligence [creator of simulator] as being alien. which has led me to my own conclusion. God is an alien concept to anyone who does not believe in a God. so I believe their term alien could be an actual reference to God.

but this actually would not shock me. according to the Pew Research Poll [most credible poll], 51% [over half or the majority] of today's current scientists actually go to church, believe in a higher power or specifically God [Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/].

next, this simulation idealism will be compared to scripture.

and btw, I must say it again, I do enjoy this newest fad concerning simulation. it means, since we now understand there was literally nothing before the BANG took place in the form of energy, singularity, laws of physics, dark matter, plasma, etc, due to the COBE telescope expedition...and that the BANG is what caused all of these laws and soup ingredients to come into effect, brings back the idea of creation.

and a simulation is exactly that, a form of creation

Not for me?

Again not for me?

The matrix concept is about how our brains use the signals we get from our senses. It considers that those senses can be induced in such detail that our brains get fooled that its reality.
A transhumanist concept related to mind uploading.

Transhumanism - The Consciousness Trap - Piercing the Veil of Reality
http://veilofreality.com/transhumanism-the-consciousness-trap/

Transhumanism is a philosophy that humanity can, and should, strive to higher levels, both physically, mentally and socially. It encourages research into such areas as life extension, cryonics, nanotechnology, physical and mental enhancements, uploading human consciousness into computers and megascale engineering.

http://www.aleph.se/Trans/

The Individual Sphere
Practical methods and visions of transforming ourselves, achieving longevity or immortality, conquering death and disease, amplifying our intelligence and minds and extending our bodies.
The Global Sphere
The future evolution of humanity, postbiological existence, technological singularity, posthuman beings, expansion into the universe and the Omega Point.
The Cultural Sphere
The philosophy, ethics, art and language of transhumanism, and how society, culture and "the human condition" may change in the future.
The Technological Sphere
The technologies making things possible: nanotechnology, biotechnology, space colonization and advanced computing, and the outer limits of technology: megascale engineering and spacetime manipulation.
The Organizational Sphere
Transhumanist organizations, web pages, mailing lists and related subjects.

Thank you all for taking the time to post. This is by far my favorite subject, I appreciate your input.

@iam

Exactly so, many do believe that God/alien connection. Many cultures world wide. Fine line, religion and science....

I feel like we're on earth to learn and grow and hopefully have fun and love while we're at it...it's possible
our future selves might be setting up self help programs (life cycles) to guide us into something a lot better than we have now.
What do you think of that?

@Tom

I'm going to re-read this and try to wrap my mind around it.

I definitely believe humanity is always in a transitional process. sadly however, those whose intent on being a better person is washed out by those who don't think of others. but this could also be due to psychological disorders/mental illnesses.

example:
recent gun violence and then learning the shooters are mentally ill.

but even aside from mental illness, there are people who just don't want to be a part of making life better as a whole.

another issue is extreme religious idealisms that separates us. I for one believe the intent of following a deity is to ultimately become a better person. you admit you are flawed and then follow an example that helps you replace bad habits with better positive ones. and this actually works until your religion is about killing others. so there becomes a fine line in interpretation.

example:
Yeshua ate, slept, and kept company with people considered undesirable which included sinners. but many people who follow Yeshua, actually condemn the very people that Yeshua would have spent His time with. so, they clearly do not understand what Yeshua's intent was.




now for your question of better life cycles:

technology-science-medical advancements are incredible. we are living longer, we can educate ourselves better, our resources through technology is limitless, and scientifically we are asking better questions for a better tomorrow [science has spent more time debating scripture and our beginnings than figuring out what will help us become better tomorrow].

but the combo of science-technology-medical advancements has the potential to create ways to continue past death. I see that AI's [artificial intelligence] are more life like than when it first appeared like a sweeper/vacuum. and cloning has made tremendous strides.

my biggest concern though, is I believe in the soul. which I feel creates a portion of who each one of us actually is. it's the unexplainable tangible. and once we die, I am not sure how we could capture the soul to add to our AI/clone. but then again, that is where my faith separates reality from the what ifs.

but, if we could capture the soul, then I feel my genetic code for an AI/clone would be a truer extension of who I am right this very moment in the coming future.

for your consideration

In the field of epistemology, Putnam is known for his "brain in a vat" thought experiment (a modernized version of Descartes's evil demon hypothesis). The argument is that one cannot coherently state that one is a disembodied "brain in a vat" placed there by some "mad scientist".[11]
This follows from the causal theory of reference. Words always refer to the kinds of things they were coined to refer to, thus the kinds of things their user, or the user's ancestors, experienced. So, if some person, Mary, were a "brain in a vat", whose every experience is received through wiring and other gadgetry created by the "mad scientist", then Mary's idea of a "brain" would not refer to a "real" brain, since she and her linguistic community have never seen such a thing. Rather, she saw something that looked like a brain, but was actually an image fed to her through the wiring. Similarly, her idea of a "vat" would not refer to a "real" vat. So, if, as a brain in a vat, she were to say "I'm a brain in a vat", she would actually be saying "I'm a brain-image in a vat-image", which is incoherent. On the other hand, if she is not a brain in a vat, then saying that she is a brain in a vat is still incoherent, but now because she actually means the opposite. This is a form of epistemological externalism: knowledge or justification depends on factors outside the mind and is not solely determined internally.[11]
Putnam has clarified that his real target in this argument was never skepticism, but metaphysical realism.[56] Since realism of this kind assumes the existence of a gap between how man conceives the world and the way the world really is, skeptical scenarios such as this one (or Descartes' evil demon) present a formidable challenge. Putnam, by arguing that such a scenario is impossible, attempts to show that this notion of a gap between man's concept of the world and the way it is, is in itself absurd. Man cannot have a "God's eye" view of reality. He is limited to his conceptual schemes. Metaphysical realism is therefore false, according to Putnam.

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam#Mathematics_and_computer_science

—IM

Sadly for you we're not in argument with Putnam . Now if you got 2 cents to contribute well by all means let it fly otherwise pfffft.

And other than rudeness, your contribution is...?

Iam, ImF and up2me, I appreciate you all taking the time to respond.
But please don't pick at each other
Iam and ImF..capturing the soul..I put to you that maybe here (earth, living as we do)is already capturing the soul. Our higher self is at this moment elsewhere, running our mind in this simulation.
Therefore there is no need to capture it. It is put in this program, after our life cycle is over, the soul pops out of this body, goes back to the other dimension until it's decided what up next. Another time at life here or advance to another level, what ever that is.

In my mind, establishing a metaphysical construct that merges the idea of soul with AI (your program and simulation) calls for conclusions I am not prepared to make at this time.

Instead of accepting AI as an inevitable end point of sentient biological existence, I need to ask:
Will functionalism, the idea that machines can be programmed to replicate the human brain, ever be realized? Have we been watching too many Star Trek movies? Did Data tear up because of bona fide emotions or did the algorithm say, 'in this particular circumstance it's time to turn on the waterworks'?

More interesting to me are the moral implications. What happens when your AI controlled vehicle runs amok and causes an accident? Will you, as the owner, be liable? The manufacturer?
If SIMS become integrated in humanity, how will this affect non-SIMS' viewpoint on life? Oh, it's just a SIM, trash it. SIM armies fighting SIM wars. He who has the most SIMS rules. One guy/woman left on the planet with only SIMS for company?—nice. Or, maybe not.
Robotization has impacted society with a loss of many jobs. Already, machines guided by self-replicating code are producing more machines. What's left for humans to do? Paint, create music, enjoy the good life?

One last point: Immunology suggests there are 10^24 possible combinations of antibody molecules in the human body that function 'autonomously' to prevent sickness and disease. I juxtapose that with (Stephen Hawking's proposed resolution to the black hole information paradox). This would achieve storage density exactly equal to the Bekenstein bound. Seth Lloyd calculated[7] the computational abilities of an "ultimate laptop" formed by compressing a kilogram of matter into a black hole of radius 1.485 × 10^−27 meters, concluding that it would only last about 10^−19 seconds before evaporating due to Hawking radiation, but that during this brief time it could compute at a rate of about 5 × 10^50 operations per second,

Someday over the rainbow...—IM

@ IM
After everything I've read and been through so far in life, I have already made that conclusion myself. I believe it has already been recognized is why we are here and can think and "live"

The moral implications are exactly what concerns me...are we on auto pilot and just keep mucking up our realities? We are responsible, but none of us are really responsible so the world is in the state it is now...
If so, what if someone kicks out the power cord?

yes, exactly...It will be sims fighting wars as it already is from what I've read.
What will be left? How about a life with no worries? How about not wasting all our precious time here working? being about to play, live and love. I think that is what is meant for us.

Also I do think that the possibility of us doing away with sickness and disease is also in our near future.
which opens up another thing...over population..

How everything can fall into place is the wonder...
Someday over the rainbow...

http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#UltimateWhy

A possibly meaningful (but unparsimonious) answer to the Ultimate Why is that the universe exists (more precisely, is perceived to exist) roughly because it is possible. The reasoning would be as follows. Absolute impossibility -- the state of affairs in which nothing is possible -- is itself not possible, because if nothing truly were possible, then absolute impossibility would not be possible, implying that at least something must be possible. But if at least one thing is possible, then it seems the universe we perceive should be no less possible than anything else. Now, assuming that physicalism is right and that qualia and consciousness are epiphenomena, then the phenomenology of a mind and its perfect simulation are identical. So whether the universe we perceive existed or not, it as a merely possible universe would be perceived by its merely possible inhabitants no differently than our actual universe is perceived by its actual inhabitants. By analogy, the thoughts and perceptions of a particular artificial intelligence in a simulated universe would be the same across identical "runs" of the simulation, regardless of whether we bothered to initiate such a "run" once, twice -- or never.
Thus, the universe might merely be the undreamed possible dream of no particular dreamer.

While I don't actually agree or disagree with Brian Holtz, I offer his page as a consideration to expand your own views on such subjects.

Epistemic Provisionality.
All synthetic propositions (including this one) can only be known from experience and are subject to doubt. It is logically possible that all experience is deceptive and that the world is illusory. The only absolutely certain truths are true analytic propositions and the synthetic proposition that something exists.

The Verifiability Principle holds that a statement is propositionally meaningless (i.e. states no proposition) if it is neither logically decidable nor empirically verifiable. Positivism is a stricter form of Empiricism that asserts the Verifiability Principle.

Theories of Meaning

Humans have proposed three sorts of explanation for meaning:

***The Referential Theory of Meaning is that the meaning of a term is the things in the world it refers to.
***The Conceptual Theory of Meaning is that the meaning of a term is the properties and concepts associated with it.
***The Behavioral Theory of Meaning is that the meaning of a term consists of the behaviors and dispositions associated with it.

Theories of Knowledge

Humans fall into two camps depending on whether they believe synthetic a priori knowledge is possible:

***Rationalism is the thesis that some synthetic propositions can be known from reason alone and independent of any experience.
***Empiricism is the thesis that all synthetic propositions can only be known from experience.