GENIUS FORUMS

I think the closest humans ever got to these concepts was "The Matrix". Except of course there is no world run by machinary on the other side.

Except of course there is no world run by machinary on the other side.

The machinery was just to make a storyline, so they could have a movie. But the truths expressed are actual.

slumsquirrel wrote:I think the closest humans ever got to these concepts was "The Matrix". Except of course there is no world run by machinary on the other side.

Is this in the right thread?

Anyway, I'm not altogether against machines taking over from humans. It does make sense, but I prefer to believe that they haven't. But the obvious point is that it is easy to kill of humans with disease if you were a sentient machine.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I'm not altogether against machines taking over from humans. It does make sense, but I prefer to believe that they haven't.

You're sort of for machines enslaving humanity? Way to go, Pincho.

And it makes sense to you that maybe they already are (but you prefer to believe otherwise)?

*rollie eyes*

How do you know there are no machines on the other side?

I would like to think the point of the movie is just to show how little we know about life, how we cannot know anything "beyond" our human perspective, whether there is or isn't anything there is not even knowable to us, though religious people employ various tricks to make people believe they have somehow crossed this boundary and discovered some higher truth or meaning to life.

Carl G wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I'm not altogether against machines taking over from humans. It does make sense, but I prefer to believe that they haven't.

You're sort of for machines enslaving humanity? Way to go, Pincho.

And it makes sense to you that maybe they already are (but you prefer to believe otherwise)?

*rollie eyes*

I mean, I'm not against the notion, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the machines taking over. There is one thing wrong with the film however, and that is that they would probably kill us, and not keep us as batteries. So I prefer that humans put us here instead.

Neil Melnyk wrote:How do you know there are no machines on the other side?

I don't, but that is beside my points. My points were that 1) Pincho seemed to be saying he wouldn't mind being controlled by a machine, and 2) it made sense to him that he already was (though he preferred to think not).

I would like to think the point of the movie is just to show how little we know about life, how we cannot know anything "beyond" our human perspective, whether there is or isn't anything there is not even knowable to us,

I don't get that from the movie at all, but hey, who knows what the Wachowski brothers were actually thinking.

though religious people employ various tricks to make people believe they have somehow crossed this boundary and discovered some higher truth or meaning to life.

Nihilism (and, apparently, ex-religious baggage) noted.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I mean, I'm not against the notion, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the machines taking over. There is one thing wrong with the film however, and that is that they would probably kill us, and not keep us as batteries. So I prefer that humans put us here instead.

You're not against it, but that doesn't mean you're for it?

Pincho, either you're not thinking clearly or English is not your first language, or both.

Have a nice day.

Carl G wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I mean, I'm not against the notion, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the machines taking over. There is one thing wrong with the film however, and that is that they would probably kill us, and not keep us as batteries. So I prefer that humans put us here instead.

You're not against it, but that doesn't mean you're for it?

Pincho, either you're not thinking clearly or English is not your first language, or both.

Have a nice day.

I was making a post against this quote...............

I think the closest humans ever got to these concepts was "The Matrix". Except of course there is no world run by machinary on the other side.

I mean that the notion is possible, and not impossible. But this guy says he is sure that there are no machines on the other side, which isn't really beyond doubt.

Neil Melnyk wrote:How do you know there are no machines on the other side?

I would like to think the point of the movie is just to show how little we know about life, how we cannot know anything "beyond" our human perspective, whether there is or isn't anything there is not even knowable to us, though religious people employ various tricks to make people believe they have somehow crossed this boundary and discovered some higher truth or meaning to life.

And then there are the wise people whose knowledge and wisdom isn't affected by the possibility that life is a virtual reality of some kind.

-

David Quinn wrote:And then there are the wise people whose knowledge and wisdom isn't affected by the possibility that life is a virtual reality of some kind.

There are two types of them:
1) Those who create their own goals and meaning in this "life" place that they find themselves.
2) Those who, for whatever reason, usually incompetence, fear, impotence, sickness, weariness, whatever, do not want to participate in this "life" place and hence worship their inability to know anything higher.

David Quinn wrote:People either realize the conceptual nature of their binds and break free of them, or they don't. Either way, they are at the mercy of their causes. (From Spiritual Death thread)

This is the type of thing I was referring to when I said that religious peoples employ tricks to grasp at some "higher truths" (causality). Metaphysicians are another religion.

And then there are the wise people whose knowledge and wisdom isn't affected by the possibility that life is a virtual reality of some kind.

It is a redundant possibility unworthy of any further consideration once having rejected it.
There are times when speculation is just a mystery lovers wank, and Matrix types speculations are one of those.

There is a point in which probabilites become too extreme to be seriously considered - the complexity of the world and the observed universe, and our imagination, are just simply too complex for simulation. I for one have ZERO doubt that such a situation is not what we are. Not that it would make anything I believe redundant - for instance, evolution would still be fundamental truth, regardless of whether we and all life on earth was created by the hand of some alien cocksucker or not.

There is however little to no doubt our minds work in roughly the same fashion as do computer programs - this is just how we evolved.

Jamesh wrote:

for instance, evolution would still be fundamental truth, regardless of whether we and all life on earth was created by the hand of some alien cocksucker or not.

A good point, which even Intervention Theorists do not make.

Unless, like the Universe itself, humanoids have always been around, on some planet, or plane, or other.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

I've always disliked this quote. Relative to the fool the wise man knows the fool is a fool. One of the appeals of philosophy to me, is to really know when what you think is more correct, than that of others. No wise man would become wise without first desiring correctness.

On the other hand, there are always pluses and misuses for anything gained or lost. Ones aim should be to try to gain more than one loses. The wise man knows he can still be a fool in relation to what eventuates in the future, but on average he will be less foolish than the fool.

Jamesh wrote:

And then there are the wise people whose knowledge and wisdom isn't affected by the possibility that life is a virtual reality of some kind.

It is a redundant possibility unworthy of any further consideration once having rejected it.
There are times when speculation is just a mystery lovers wank, and Matrix types speculations are one of those.

There is a point in which probabilites become too extreme to be seriously considered - the complexity of the world and the observed universe, and our imagination, are just simply too complex for simulation. I for one have ZERO doubt that such a situation is not what we are. Not that it would make anything I believe redundant - for instance, evolution would still be fundamental truth, regardless of whether we and all life on earth was created by the hand of some alien cocksucker or not.

There is however little to no doubt our minds work in roughly the same fashion as do computer programs - this is just how we evolved.

These worlds that you say are too complex for simulation have been simulated since 1990, but in a low resolution. That's just 10 years of computer game development. But I am saying that Heaven has computers at least 4 million years old. Do you know what mankind could do with a computer in 4 million years time? I would say that your comments are not very open minded at all. Open mindedness is an important trait for true wisdom.

These worlds that you say are too complex for simulation have been simulated since 1990, but in a low resolution. That's just 10 years of computer game development. But I am saying that Heaven has computers at least 4 million years old. Do you know what mankind could do with a computer in 4 million years time? I would say that your comments are not very open minded at all. Open mindedness is an important trait for true wisdom.

There would need to be a point for it all. To be mere playthings of some aliens gods seems pretty childish behaviour for gods. I guess they'd have nothing better to do.

And to think such programs run so bug free. Just a bit of interference here and there. You know, ghosts and crop circles and magic and geniuses and gods and so on. Perhaps atoms are computer programs?

Look the thing is either the computer programs would reflect reality or they would not. The computer programs would have to be of an evolving nature. Just set the starter programs in play and lets see what eventuates. As non-evolving programs, they could not possibly directly control every thing I perceive, all my bodily emotions and pains and itches and other reactions. The question then becomes OK, so what is going to be fucking different in the non-program world. Nothing - because the silly alien playgods would have had to evolve in the same fashion as us.

I think to be rational one must apply Occams razor, and the idea that we are some play toy is a redundant concept. Any generalisation is the application of this sharp razor, and philosophers must generalise to find the truth. To me the argument that we might be a computer program is the argument of an academic, and adds no value to matters of reality.

All the means for our evolution - and the non-existent intellectual design aliens - from nothing to something are provided by the world we inhabit. There are no miracles, everything that has happened has occurred because that occurrence was caused to occur by everything else. Everything is explainable in a consistent manner.

Jamesh wrote:

These worlds that you say are too complex for simulation have been simulated since 1990, but in a low resolution. That's just 10 years of computer game development. But I am saying that Heaven has computers at least 4 million years old. Do you know what mankind could do with a computer in 4 million years time? I would say that your comments are not very open minded at all. Open mindedness is an important trait for true wisdom.

There would need to be a point for it all. To be mere playthings of some aliens gods seems pretty childish behaviour for gods. I guess they'd have nothing better to do.

And to think such programs run so bug free. Just a bit of interference here and there. You know, ghosts and crop circles and magic and geniuses and gods and so on. Perhaps atoms are computer programs?

Look the thing is either the computer programs would reflect reality or they would not. The computer programs would have to be of an evolving nature. Just set the starter programs in play and lets see what eventuates. As non-evolving programs, they could not possibly directly control every thing I perceive, all my bodily emotions and pains and itches and other reactions. The question then becomes OK, so what is going to be fucking different in the non-program world. Nothing - because the silly alien playgods would have had to evolve in the same fashion as us.

I think to be rational one must apply Occams razor, and the idea that we are some play toy is a redundant concept. Any generalisation is the application of this sharp razor, and philosophers must generalise to find the truth. To me the argument that we might be a computer program is the argument of an academic, and adds no value to matters of reality.

All the means for our evolution - and the non-existent intellectual design aliens - from nothing to something are provided by the world we inhabit. There are no miracles, everything that has happened has occurred because that occurrence was caused to occur by everything else. Everything is explainable in a consistent manner.

Because you are adding some strange concepts to this like ALIENS PLAYTHINGS, you are making it UNREAL.

Yes, this program would be a reflection of reality. Evolution would still exist out side of the program. The itch on your nose could still be an itch on the nose outside of the computer program. Your thoughts could be inside the head outside of the computer program.

But you need to add why we would be inside a virtual reality machine, and it is evolution that puts us here. Evolution of mankind. We learn how to stop ageing, we live forever, we get bored, so we go inside a virtual reality machine so that we can at least have something new to do. Boredom is an effect of eternal life. Nothing new to do at all. You will have watched every movie ever made, you will have heard every song. You will have made love to a million women, you will have won every game, you will have eaten every food, you will have had every conversation possible, you will have solved all things, you will have brushed your teeth a billion times, you will have had every dream, you will have seen every invention, you will have to live a life with no more new interactions at all.

A virtual reality machine with all physics is not hard to imagine even in this day and age. So in 4 million years is extremely likely to exist.

It is also the perfect lifetime to exist in a virtual reality machine. My parents can't even work a video recorder so they wouldn't cope in Heaven very well with computer programs fitted to everything. So 1 generation back is too early. 1 generation forward and Rocky 6 has been made. Movies are now mostly all created. So 1 generation forward is too late.

So it has to be this exact generation for the virtual reality machine to be used at its best.

What are the chances of us living the exact, perfect generation? .. 1 lifetime in history.

What are the chances of us being in a virtual reality machine that can recreate this exact generation a billion times over?..... A billion lifetimes in history!!!!

So you decide if you believe in good fortune. You are lucky to live the 1 lifetime in history that works, or you a deffinately in a virtual reality machine.

mikiel wrote:

average wrote:There is no kingdom of God or Heaven, no Nirvana and no Absolute Truth, No Samsara, No Salvation and no Damnation for you

You do not persist long enough to call yourself wise, enlightened, holy, profound, truthful. What you refer to was never there.

You can not enter the gates of nirvana because the gates are imaginary, just like you.

You are a ghost and I am talking to the wind.
Discuss.

As an old 'shrink' i must advise you to replace all your "you's" with "I's" and see your own pathetic situation without projecting it on anyone else.

ps: your last "I" had a ring of Truth... and I too wonder what the answer (which "is blowing in the wind") is telling you. Seems to me from your post that you are not open to listening anyway.
Just on a whim.
mikiel

I must say that you can tell a lot from one single post. I'm being quite sarcastic as you are obviously extremely arrogant and pretentious. I think that before you disregard what he is saying and claim that he is projecting, reflect on it a little while. How many years have you been on this earth? 50? Me, I've been here 20. I cannot say that anything I have ever thought would matter in the great scheme of human affairs right now, nor could I imagine that anything that you have thought, whether you're 50 or 100, is much different from anything else anyone else has ever thought. If you think Nirvana and Heaven are anything more than constructed myths of human religion, then you must not be very far along whatever path you claim to be on.

Carl G wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I mean, I'm not against the notion, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the machines taking over. There is one thing wrong with the film however, and that is that they would probably kill us, and not keep us as batteries. So I prefer that humans put us here instead.

You're not against it, but that doesn't mean you're for it?

Pincho, either you're not thinking clearly or English is not your first language, or both.

Have a nice day.

Dude, arguing this point is irrelevant. He's saying that he considers it a possibility, but of course would not like it if it were true.

Without a stillsuit you would fry
On the sands so hot and dry
In a world called Arrakis.

It is a land that's rich in spice
The sandriders and the 'mice'
That they call the 'Muad Dib'.

what are you'll discussing?

Does anybody want to talk?

Is anybody out there with a brain?

Great. Another wave of idiocy hits the forum.