Are We Real?

[Hakurei Reimu]

Materialism: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

[KUSA]

This is the wrong question. Of course we are real! Whether we are living in a simulation or exist in an external objective material reality, we are real either way. The better question is, "Is Materialism true?" The answer is a resounding "NO", Materialism was a good approximation that got us by for quite a long time just like flat earth theory and geocentric universe theory did before it. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Materialism is in it's death throws and will soon be replaced by a virtual reality model of reality within the framework of Idealism.

First it will be granted that virtual reality is a superior model, but people will still maintain that it is simulated in a material reality on a material computer to save their cherished belief in Materialism for just a little while longer.

Then, after getting used to the idea of loosening one's grip on Materialism, it will be granted that the computer that is simulating this reality is consciousness itself. Consciousness is the computer.

It is only a matter of time. It will be a long drawn out fight against belief, but in the end reason will prevail. Enjoy the ride.

You should be in a nut house.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

If you believe you're not real please prove it and disappear permanently. We'll speculate from there out if you were real or not.

[Berati]

This is the wrong question. Of course we are real! Whether we are living in a simulation or exist in an external objective material reality, we are real either way. The better question is, "Is Materialism true?" The answer is a resounding "NO", Materialism was a good approximation that got us by for quite a long time just like flat earth theory and geocentric universe theory did before it. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Materialism is in it's death throws and will soon be replaced by a virtual reality model of reality within the framework of Idealism.

First it will be granted that virtual reality is a superior model, but people will still maintain that it is simulated in a material reality on a material computer to save their cherished belief in Materialism for just a little while longer.

Then, after getting used to the idea of loosening one's grip on Materialism, it will be granted that the computer that is simulating this reality is consciousness itself. Consciousness is the computer.

It is only a matter of time. It will be a long drawn out fight against belief, but in the end reason will prevail. Enjoy the ride.

"Morpheus: Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You'll have to see it for yourself."

You cannot prove material reality is an illusion from within the illusion.
The quantum eraser experiment that you so carelessly misinterpret would be part of the illusion. You can't dismiss all evidence that that world is materially real because you can't trust anything you see and feel... then throw yourself headlong into a belief based on an experiment that you see and feel. That's hypocrisy.

Solipsism is self refuting. Don't blame anyone for that but yourself.

[josephpalazzo]

This thread is an illusion.

[stromboli]

I'm real. I just got done feeling myself from head to foot, and it was GOOD.

[Casparov]

You cannot prove material reality is an illusion from within the illusion.
The quantum eraser experiment that you so carelessly misinterpret would be part of the illusion. You can't dismiss all evidence that that world is materially real because you can't trust anything you see and feel... then throw yourself headlong into a belief based on an experiment that you see and feel. That's hypocrisy.

So you argument is that everyone in the Matrix had zero hope and were absolute hypocrites if they agreed with experimental evidence that were living in the matrix? They would be correct. They would have grasped objective truth of their situation, yet you argue that they would ultimately be hypocrites if they didn't assume materialism regardless of the evidence? They must assume incorrectly about their actual situation?

As it is argued in "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" by Brian Whitworth You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Can science evaluate if a world is a virtual reality from within it? Suppose one day that the computer code that creates “The Sims”, a virtual online world, became so complex that some Sims within the simulation began to “think”. Could they deduce that their world was a virtual world, or at least that it was likely to be so? If simulated beings in a simulated world acquired thought, like us, would they see their world as we see ours now? A virtual entity could not perceive the processing that creates its world, but it could conceive it, as we do now. They could compare how a virtual reality would behave with how their world actually behaved. They could not “know”, but they could deduce a likelihood, which is all our science does anyway.

Based on evidence and observation one can deduce whether they live in an Objective Reality or a Virtual one. Both are "real", only one asserts external objective material and the other asserts only consciousness and information.

Dr Johnson is said to have reacted to that idea the world is created by the mind by stubbing his toe on a stone and saying “I disprove it thus”. However VR theory does not claim that the world is unreal to its inhabitants, only that it is not objectively real.

To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unreal”, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.

[Moralnihilist]

To Casper:

Prove it or shut the fuck up.

[Jason78]

This is the wrong question. Of course we are real! Whether we are living in a simulation or exist in an external objective material reality, we are real either way. The better question is, "Is Materialism true?"

Do you actually have anything else to talk about?   Is there not one subject you can join in on without somehow connecting it to your pet theory?

[Shol'va]

The better question is, "Is Materialism true?"

I disagree. An even better question than your question is, whether or not in your world view you regard materialism as true, how does that actually affect the way you behave?
Can you name one thing that only a person that accepts your world view can do, and one that rejects it cannot?
You've stated that the goal, in your world view, is to evolve (however you might take that to mean) and to better ourselves.
That's pretty much an extremely generic goal, in the sense that I am having a hard time thinking of even one world view that dictates the goal in life is to stay as you are.
So to me, "are we real" is, for all intents and purposes, mental masturbation. What I am preoccupied with more is what you do with that answer.

[Casparov]

I disagree. An even better question than your question is, whether or not in your world view you regard materialism as true, how does that actually affect the way you behave?
Can you name one thing that only a person that accepts your world view can do, and one that rejects it cannot?
You've stated that the goal, in your world view, is to evolve (however you might take that to mean) and to better ourselves.
That's pretty much an extremely generic goal, in the sense that I am having a hard time thinking of even one world view that dictates the goal in life is to stay as you are.
So to me, "are we real" is, for all intents and purposes, mental masturbation. What I am preoccupied with more is what you do with that answer.

How something effects the way you behave has no baring on it's Truth Value. If you are concerned about knowing what is true, then "Is this true?" is a good question to ask. If you are not concerned with what is actually the case and what is true, then perhaps it is a waste of time for you to ask such questions. Regardless, "does it affect my behavior?" has nothing to do with whether or not something is the actual case.

That being said, the idea that "We are all One Consciousness experiencing itself subjectively" will effect behavior because with it comes the knowledge that ultimately "We Are All One". Morality then falls out of this knowledge. The Golden Rule makes a whole lot of sense if "others are yourself". If you see yourself in others and all creatures you behave differently than if you believe yourself to be separate and unaffected by the plight of others. If however you realize that what you do to another you are literally doing to yourself, then your behavior should reflect that knowledge.

[Shol'va]

"We are one" can also be said of a humanist. It is the recognition that we are all humans and the acknowledgement that my suffering is very well someone elses, and I should not do unto others what I do not like done unto me.
There isn't anything that you've argued for which is neither exclusive nor contingent on a world view which proposes all of this is a simulation. In other words you bring nothing to the table other than an assertion. No "oughts" to live by, no ultimate code of ethics, nothing.

In fact, it can be argued that such a world view can be toxic. Think Inception. If I genuinely believe this is all a simulation and I simply want to unplug, I can just off myself. Which is fine, but what if I also decide to end others because according to my own perception of this particular world view, I'd be doing them a favor.

How something effects the way you behave has no baring on it's Truth Value.

You are missing the point. You haven't shown the "value" part in that "truth" proposition.

[Casparov]

"We are one" can also be said of a humanist. It is the recognition that we are all humans and the acknowledgement that my suffering is very well someone elses, and I should not do unto others what I do not like done unto me.
There isn't anything that you've argued for which is neither exclusive nor contingent on a world view which proposes all of this is a simulation. In other words you bring nothing to the table other than an assertion. No "oughts" to live by, no ultimate code of ethics, nothing.

If you truly treat others as if "we are all one" and you are steadily evolving towards love, then you are correct. Having a larger and more accurate picture of reality adds nothing behavior-wise. The only thing that can be offered beyond that is better understanding of the nature of existence.

In fact, it can be argued that such a world view can be toxic. Think Inception. If I genuinely believe this is all a simulation and I simply want to unplug, I can just off myself. Which is fine, but what if I also decide to end others because according to my own perception of this particular world view, I'd be doing them a favor.

In my view committing suicide is a waste of time. We are here to evolve and committing suicide only throws a wrench into the process and slows it down. I believe in reincarnation, either back into this reality or another like it. In this view killing others or yourself is not doing anyone any favors it's just causing a bunch of heart ache and unnecessary wasting of time and resources.

On the other hand if one believes that existence ceases at death then such a world view could be toxic. Consider someone who is convinced that existence is nothing but pain and suffering and therefore killing everyone and him/herself would be doing everyone a favor by ending all of the suffering. There is a thread on this forum started by such a person who does not wish to exist, and the belief that existence stops after physical death is toxic in this situation because he truly believes he has an "out". And so suicide is a logical conclusion according to your world view. So don't try to convince me that a belief that consciousness ceases at physical death is preferred behaviorally.

Also, someone who believes they are their brain and their physical body believes themselves to be a separate material object and therefore considers morality only a virtue but not an integrated part of the nature of reality. Selfishness and fear are the products of the belief that one is separated from the rest.

Further, "humanism" only has to do with "humans" whereas the concept that "We Are All One" includes all living creatures and whole of reality.

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” - Albert Einstein

[Berati]

So you argument is that everyone in the Matrix had zero hope and were absolute hypocrites if they agreed with experimental evidence that were living in the matrix? They would be correct. They would have grasped objective truth of their situation, yet you argue that they would ultimately be hypocrites if they didn't assume materialism regardless of the evidence? They must assume incorrectly about their actual situation?

You're very good at missing the point.

There was no experimental evidence from within the Matrix. None. Just as you have none. That is what Morpheus was saying.
The only solution in The Matrix was to take Neo out of the illusion. Can you do that? NO! In the movie, the Matrix was real. In the non movie universe, the Matrix is just a movie.

So, for you to reject all physical evidence of a material universe as illusion and then turn around and attempt to use physical evidence in support of your self centered view of the universe is hypocrisy in action.

[Casparov]

You're very good at missing the point.

There was no experimental evidence from within the Matrix. None. Just as you have none. That is what Morpheus was saying.
The only solution in The Matrix was to take Neo out of the illusion. Can you do that? NO! In the movie, the Matrix was real. In the non movie universe, the Matrix is just a movie.

If you want a red pill you can have one, it's not as easy just popping a pill in real life though. You have to dedicate time and effort to mastering a skill which is referred to "Self Induced Out of Body Experiences". You may need to spend up to six months in disciplined practice to achieve this, but when you do, you can "take Neo out of the illusion" as you say and evaluate the experience from this other perspective. Of course no one can convince that this are not just hallucinations and tricks of the brain, only you can make that determination after having experienced it for yourself.

So if you want a Red Pill, you have just been offered one. Now do you want it bad enough to spend the next several months in disciplined practice of a complicated skill? That is a choice no one can make but you. But don't claim that you were never offered your Red Pill, just admit that you weren't willing to do what it takes to accept it.

So, for you to reject all physical evidence of a material universe as illusion and then turn around and attempt to use physical evidence in support of your self centered view of the universe is hypocrisy in action.

To postulate the world is virtual does not contradict science, but rather engages its spirit of questioning. Science is a method of asking questions, not a set of reality assumptions. Scientists are entitled to ask if what could be, actually is so. The only constraint is that the question be decided by feedback gathered from the world by an accepted research method. Science does not require an objective world, only information to test theories against, which a VR can easily provide. Not only can science accommodate the virtual world concept, a virtual world could also sustain science.