Global Consciousness Project

[Farm Boy]

They're all so interesting. Smell is a very ancient sense, and is deep in our memory pathways. Huge amounts of our brain is devoted to vision. Hearing is interesting. While obviously a person doesn't need hearing to have language, the neuronal centers devoted to language (that a deaf person still has) were evolved in a neuro-architecture that had hearing as it continued to refine.

You know that David Attenborough one(there are so many), "Triumph of the Vertebrates?" Not the best one, but I liked it a lot for the chronology of common ancestors and when some key features became a thing with the backwards commonalities. Smell isn't really even lizard brain. It's more like brains coming into existence helped optimize smell response, isn't it? Slug "brain" maybe.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, we don't really have 'lizard brain', because we have since modified the lizard brain (as well as having built upon it). But yeah, if you wanted to use such language, smell is pretty 'lizard'. It's hard to have language about such things. I was talking about the cognitive importance of smell, and yet I don't think of slugs as having cognition ...

 

[yung.carl.jung]

@xwyhzol

you dodged my most relevant points:

why do you think that death cannot be simulated, but life can?

why do you believe that everyone can be beautiful, do you disagree that beauty is relative? do you think it is absolute?

I said I'm not saying beauty is all. I already know what you said.

God is known as the soul one, where does it say in the bible " and God did science for the big bang.

There is no reason to discern between technology we don't understand and creation. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Also, I think it's really funny that you talk about an intelligent species on a higher plane, but then you imagine it as a scientist engineering big bang. Your view is decidedly anthropologic.

Further, a member of a species who had lived a long time before even thinking about the big bang, is not God.

why is that?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, we don't really have 'lizard brain', because we have since modified the lizard brain (as well as having built upon it). But yeah, if you wanted to use such language, smell is pretty 'lizard'. It's hard to have language about such things. I was talking about the cognitive importance of smell, and yet I don't think of slugs as having cognition ...

Cognition serves first and rules second. Wouldn't you say? If we're attempting to ride that particular bull.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Well, we don't really have 'lizard brain', because we have since modified the lizard brain (as well as having built upon it). But yeah, if you wanted to use such language, smell is pretty 'lizard'. It's hard to have language about such things. I was talking about the cognitive importance of smell, and yet I don't think of slugs as having cognition ...

The "lizard part of brain" theory has pretty much completely been debunked. The guy who came up with the idea, Paul D. MacLean, thought that our (or any) basal ganglia structure was derived from reptilianism. Basal ganglia are driving our heartbeat, breathing, and they're relevant for any form of habit, ever. They're both essential for survival and pretty nasty to beat.

 

[Farm Boy]

Was thinking more in commonalities than in literal shared structure.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

It wasn't meant as a hit at your nor El_Mac, but rather an interesting factoid. I happened to be reading about MacLean and his theories today anyway, on a completely unrelated matter.

 

[xwyhzol]

@xwyhzol

you dodged my most relevant points:

why do you think that death cannot be simulated, but life can?

why do you believe that everyone can be beautiful, do you disagree that beauty is relative? do you think it is absolute?



There is no reason to discern between technology we don't understand and creation. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Also, I think it's really funny that you talk about an intelligent species on a higher plane, but then you imagine it as a scientist engineering big bang. Your view is decidedly anthropologic.



why is that?

Life and death is the reality of vessel life in this universe - we're locked out of normal simulate states.

I'm just saying knowledge on how to create beautiful faces is useful knowledge - nothing more.

What? Why do you talk about creation in the God-myth sense?

Creation simply means the universe was created - nothing more. Why does a member of a species who existed for a long time before discovering big bang tech symbolize God? Please don't force me into Christian stupor any longer.

Argue like a man, please.

No it's not anthropologic + not all intelligences are vessel life. Some people don't have to die, per se.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Life and death is the reality of vessel life in this universe

If life and death is the reality, then what is even simulated?...

Argue like a man, please.

what if I'm not a man?

you know what, never mind. time is precious. HANL

 

[xwyhzol]

What's simulated is highly creative; we have gigantic stars and planets that secure our reality; it's not changed so easily; impure.

Hey I believe in masculine/feminine; everyone can be either and is either all the time I was just prompting the man in you.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I'm sure you have no bad intentions at all, but your writing is both too esoteric and too incoherent for me to make anything out of it (and that says a lot)

 

[Birdjaguar]

1. What is your understanding of infinity? Recycling? Or it just goes on forever?

2. I hypothesize that our universe is a type of simulation - I don't think it's the purest type. For one, we die in this simultation; so take death as the measure by which it is impure.

Who created our universe was likely a member of a confederation, or the confederation itself, of some intelligent species of a purer simulation.

3. I'm not saying God at all; God-like, maybe, but definitely not the first mover; likely someone far down the line in existence; one who actually did the science for 'big bang technology'.

4. There's a lot of information to be gathered from this universe, especially if you can keep a tab on it all. I believe energy parasites mine species, and memorize as much data as they can take from the universe. How this improves simulation is obvious; new vessel types, new environments, etc. And even if it was just for pleasure, I'm sure the fact that waste sense is picked up and artistic frames are made; think about how high quality a focal point in our vision is - good photo potential.

I said I'm not saying beauty is all. I already know what you said.

5. God is known as the soul one, where does it say in the bible " and God did science for the big bang. " Further, a member of a species who had lived a long time before even thinking about the big bang, is not God. God-like, sure.

1. When talking about the physical cosmos, I take infinity to mean "no end or edges". The use of "recycling" would imply endless time as in bang, expansion, contraction, bang, etc. Combing the two gets complicated.

2. For the universe to be a simulation, then there must be something outside of it and therefore it cannot be actually infinite even if we see it as so. Since we have no evidence of something outside of the universe, you are just assuming so for the sake of building up a coherent cosmology that you like. Similarly, by assuming that the Bible is true and factual, some Christians have built a world view that sustains their faith. We all do it, even atheists. They make particular assumptions about the universe and build on those foundation blocks. I don't know what a "pure" simulation is and why a simulated death would matter at all. In some games that simulate real and not so real worlds, characters die. In some games or versions of those games, they are actually dead; in others they are reborn to live again. By definition, a simulation is a fake thing. Not real outside of its fake environment. Seeing our universe as "snow globe" on the desk of some alien can be fun, but it is mostly a common, but silly, sci fi theme.

3. Building backwards from your view of the universe leads you to these kinds of essentially useless endeavors that are necessary to support your argument. Who created the creator etc.

4. When you build a simulated world, you put in all the data and unless there is randomness, there is nothing new to learn. All you learn is whether or not the sim runs well. With randomness all you can learn is how random events effect the activity in the sim. Only if folks outside the sim universe are participating can you learn new things, and those new things will be about the participants and not the sim.

5. God means lots of different things to lots of different people. there is not a one size fits all answer to defining god.

Your case for us living in a simulation is not very convincing yet.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Life and death is the reality of vessel life in this universe - we're locked out of normal simulate states.

I'm just saying knowledge on how to create beautiful faces is useful knowledge - nothing more.

What? Why do you talk about creation in the God-myth sense?

Creation simply means the universe was created - nothing more. Why does a member of a species who existed for a long time before discovering big bang tech symbolize God? Please don't force me into Christian stupor any longer.

Argue like a man, please.

No it's not anthropologic + not all intelligences are vessel life. Some people don't have to die, per se.

Did you view of the universe and life come from some source other than your your own imagination?

 

[xwyhzol]

Did you view of the universe and life come from some source other than your your own imagination?

Genetics mean that some imagination came before me - genetically I am gifted and play the role. I think, yes, genetically, it came from my imagination.

Imagine just white outside of it. It is mostly energy; your premise breaks down at where did energy come from originally - you think - nothing - caused the big bang. You also describe what is this answer but probably say because 'you don't know', and it's not even 50/50, it's wrong to suggest nothing randomly creates something as in which case nothing is something.

 

[xwyhzol]

I think other simulations are made within light which is like a constant stream of energy. In our universe light is not pure energy, it's split somewhat. In other lifes power balance is a grasp on simulation and idea, maybe.

I don't know more than dreams and intense theory.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

For the universe to be a simulation, then there must be something outside of it and therefore it cannot be actually infinite even if we see it as so. Since we have no evidence of something outside of the universe, you are just assuming so for the sake of building up a coherent cosmology that you like. Similarly, by assuming that the Bible is true and factual, some Christians have built a world view that sustains their faith. We all do it, even atheists. They make particular assumptions about the universe and build on those foundation blocks. I don't know what a "pure" simulation is and why a simulated death would matter at all. In some games that simulate real and not so real worlds, characters die. In some games or versions of those games, they are actually dead; in others they are reborn to live again. By definition, a simulation is a fake thing. Not real outside of its fake environment. Seeing our universe as "snow globe" on the desk of some alien can be fun, but it is mostly a common, but silly, sci fi theme.

Exactly what I wanted to say. In simulations death cannot be real, by definition, as well as life. I think computer games are a good example of a simulation, because whilst games are undoubtedly material, as is the world, it is still not real in any meaningful sense. Vice versa, I definitely believe many immaterial things are absolutely real. Also in that computer games are man-made, as are all simulations we know.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Genetics mean that some imagination came before me - genetically I am gifted and play the role. I think, yes, genetically, it came from my imagination.

Imagine just white outside of it. It is mostly energy; your premise breaks down at where did energy come from originally - you think - nothing - caused the big bang. You also describe what is this answer but probably say because 'you don't know', and it's not even 50/50, it's wrong to suggest nothing randomly creates something as in which case nothing is something.

Well, I don't believe that you know how I think about the cosmos. I did mention the big bang because there has not been any other solution that is generally accepted by the scientific community. Not only should you be careful about your own assumptions, but also about those you attribute to others. As a pantheist, I look upon the universe differently than many here.

How one talks about the BB and how such an event might have worked is heavily dependent one's fundamental assumptions about existence. Your approach, my approach and the scientific approach all have very different assumptions.

I think other simulations are made within light which is like a constant stream of energy. In our universe light is not pure energy, it's split somewhat. In other lifes power balance is a grasp on simulation and idea, maybe.

I don't know more than dreams and intense theory.

I do not understand what this post means. You frequently use words in new ways that are not standard and therefore can be confusing. for example: "Genetics mean that some imagination came before me". Are you saying that a person's imagination comes from their genetics, like their red hair, five fingers, or 6' height? Or are you implying something else? Can you explain how light fits into your cosmos and what pure energy is versus light?

I want to understand how all these pieces fit together. Thanks.

 

[xwyhzol]

Well, I don't believe that you know how I think about the cosmos. I did mention the big bang because there has not been any other solution that is generally accepted by the scientific community. Not only should you be careful about your own assumptions, but also about those you attribute to others. As a pantheist, I look upon the universe differently than many here.

How one talks about the BB and how such an event might have worked is heavily dependent one's fundamental assumptions about existence. Your approach, my approach and the scientific approach all have very different assumptions.

I do not understand what this post means. You frequently use words in new ways that are not standard and therefore can be confusing. for example: "Genetics mean that some imagination came before me". Are you saying that a person's imagination comes from their genetics, like their red hair, five fingers, or 6' height? Or are you implying something else? Can you explain how light fits into your cosmos and what pure energy is versus light?

I want to understand how all these pieces fit together. Thanks.

Let's wrap this up because I sense I'm a little to esoteric for the forums liking...

I'll respond, you respond and we'll end there...

On Genetics, I merely state that my genetic make-up including my mind is made up of genetics, of men and women that lived before me in my lineage!

Therefore, yes, right back to the big bang, my imagination was involved; perhaps not directly, but definitely relative.

Where you do think the energy of the universe came from? Further, the big bang is just a young universe - another question, where did the energy of the big bang come from?

It's false to assume, nothing, especially because you don't know.

I'm not sure about pure energy light, hence 'maybe' at the end but that's where my mind is at present; but to address your point, if you take observation of light in this universe, it's not pure energy, and seems impure(I wouldn't focus too much on this, it's just idea factory).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Let's wrap this up because I sense I'm a little to esoteric for the forums liking...

I'll respond, you respond and we'll end there...

On Genetics, I merely state that my genetic make-up including my mind is made up of genetics, of men and women that lived before me in my lineage!

Therefore, yes, right back to the big bang, my imagination was involved; perhaps not directly, but definitely relative.

Where you do think the energy of the universe came from? Further, the big bang is just a young universe - another question, where did the energy of the big bang come from?

It's false to assume, nothing, especially because you don't know.

I'm not sure about pure energy light, hence 'maybe' at the end but that's where my mind is at present; but to address your point, if you take observation of light in this universe, it's not pure energy, and seems impure(I wouldn't focus too much on this, it's just idea factory).

Thanks. You raise interesting questions that are worth exploring. I'm sorry that you don't want to continue the conversation. One challenge many newcomers have here (in OT) is that they are asked to explain clearly what they mean when they say things. Your ideas are not too esoteric (or too anything, for that matter) for the folks here, but for us to have a fruitful conversation, we have to know what you mean by what you say and develop a common language to talk about your ideas. That is why I'm asking questions.

BTW, I never said you shouldn't make assumptions; I just said that we all make them and build on those to form our thinking.
As to the source of the energy found in our universe, I'd say it has always been around is a physical by product of existence.