My experiences that suggest an intelligent force exists

[excreationist]

Last year I wrote the book "An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories"
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ncensored-Guide-to-the-Christmas-Stories-quot
I came to the conclusion that traditional Christianity is wrong about the historicity of the nativity stories.

BTW the place I'm renting is extremely convenient in many ways. I said to my wife (and others?) that if we got it I'd believe in God. We got the place and I said "I didn't necessarily mean I'd believe in the Christian God"

It is very unusual for me to say things like that. I can't remember putting God to the test like that (except in that Maundy Thursday service).

There is another thing related to God - when I was in high school I was writing a long pro-YEC to a youth science magazine in response to an article of theirs. I read anti-creationist books like "Telling Lies for God" (which I later wrote a web page about pointing out dozens of major problems). Anyway I was in a room away from the computer and said to myself "I want to know the Truth no matter how bad it is". I felt a very strong tingling through my body. I think this tingling has only happened one or maybe two other times. It is one of the only times I've tried to communicate with God. Then a few months later I was deconverted by a former YEC, Ed Babinski. The major reason was the Green River Formation. Because of YEC I concluded that if Genesis can't be trusted then the God of the Bible isn't real. I had already believed that the other religions aren't true.

 

[excreationist]

BTW this is about the Baptist minister Dr Martin Luther King - something I've only known for about a week - (I originally looked into him because like Gandhi he was apparently at the sixth stage of Kohlberg's stages of moral development)

https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/the-theological-beliefs-of-martin-luther-king-jr/

"King denied almost all of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. To begin with, King rejected the deity of Christ, calling it “harmful” and “detrimental”
....he not only rejects the virgin birth, he rejects the bodily resurrection of Christ as well...
...though he denies the literal and bodily resurrection of Christ, he can say that he still believes in it because he redefines it as a spiritual experience...
...King also rejected the bodily and visible second coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead...
"...A physical Heaven and a physical Hell are inconceivable in a Copernican universe..."
....King denied that the cross of Christ was an atonement for sin...
...it is not just the Old Testament that is full of errors, he believed that Christianity borrowed its beliefs from the pagan mystery religions of the Roman world...
....There is no evidence that King ever repudiated his rejection of the deity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, a literal hell, the cross as an atonement for sin, and the Trinity. He was also, sadly, an unrepentant adulterer who lived a double life...

See also:
#6
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-martin-luther-king-jr-2/

http://discerninghistory.com/2018/04/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-christian/

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm

It seems MLK sees a contradiction between traditional Christianity and science and rejects the basics of Christianity...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Religion

....King's faith was strongly based in Jesus' commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself, loving God above all, and loving your enemies, praying for them and blessing them. ...

More about Maundy Thursday: (I knew "a new commandment" was related but didn't know the full extent!)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/giveusthisday/maundy-thursday-new-old-commandment/

...Jesus says to you today: “A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” “Maundy Thursday” comes from the Latin words mandatum novum, or “new commandment,” taken from this verse (John 13:34.)...

Like those other 2 songs, "a new commandment" is a popular old Lutheran song - #65 from 1980's "All together now". I like it a lot but even though it was very appropriate, it wasn't at the service.

That is related to my cheating at the game of life story:
"I then thought about a very complicated flower image that looked like it was made up of three main loops. I can’t remember what those three loops meant exactly. Maybe one was the “right-hand path” of being a humble servant, the next was the “left-hand path” of being self-centered, and then was the “middle path” which I think involves respect and equality."

I'm not really enthusiastic about being a servant but it has some appeal sometimes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

....If the universe is simulated, we, who are part of the simulation, realizing that would break the simulation. The point of simulating things is to answer the question 'what if ___.' I cannot imagine any way having simulated people being aware that they are simulated would help answer any question, except 'what if our simulated people could know they were simulated!' Again, what is the point?

There is a difference of "realizing" being in a simulation and "suspecting" you are. People realizing they're simulated doesn't disprove that they're in a simulation. In fact it makes the simulation a lot more interesting - e.g. like in the Truman Show movie. The plot where he suspects something is a lot more interesting than when he had no idea.
Simulations could be done for the purpose of entertainment (e.g. a sophisticated new GTA game - where the NPC have realistic conversations based on their realistic lives). Sometimes people "break the fourth wall"... it is interesting. More about what the point of a simulation might be:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...lligent-Design&p=588075&viewfull=1#post588075

Also see episodes of Black Mirror and Rick and Morty about scenarios involving simulations. In a Rick and Morty episode Rick is aware that a seemingly normal existence is actually a simulation within a simulation (within a simulation? I can't remember)
https://www.reddit.com/r/rickandmorty/comments/20uv1t/m_night_shaymaliens_question/

Yes, something like that, exactly, and maybe more.

For example, the simulation may be defective, leading to the simulated people realising they're (probably) simulated. If you start to see the real world as pixels, you may start to suspect something's not quite what you thought.

Maybe the simulation is done for a judiciary review of a crime but the criminal finds a way to tell his simulated self he's simulated so he could muddy the waters.

Or you create a simulation to discover if simulated people can discover they're simulated so you can tell whether you could possibly know whether you are simulated.

And so on, who knows what?
EB

 

[excreationist]

I think the ancient concept of Maya might be related to the idea of a simulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)
"...Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem..."

 

[Sarpedon]

There is a difference of "realizing" being in a simulation and "suspecting" you are. People realizing they're simulated doesn't disprove that they're in a simulation. In fact it makes the simulation a lot more interesting - e.g. like in the Truman Show movie. The plot where he suspects something is a lot more interesting than when he had no idea.
Simulations could be done for the purpose of entertainment (e.g. a sophisticated new GTA game - where the NPC have realistic conversations based on their realistic lives). Sometimes people "break the fourth wall"... it is interesting. More about what the point of a simulation might be:

The distinction makes no difference here: Both realizing and suspecting indicate the same thing: a flaw in the simulation.

One way religion always falls down on is 'why.' Why did god create the universe? The same is true for the simulated universe theory. There's literally no reason for a simulation to be this detailed. Why on earth would the simulation of me need to include all of my extraneous thoughts that don't affect my behavior? The answer supplied by believers in both is the same: 'It is a mystery.'

Don't get me started on 'how.' That's a flaw that the simulation theory has that the religious one doesn't.

Since I'm not religious, I see no reason to entertain a theory that is even worse than religion.

 

[Horatio Parker]

syn·chro·nic·i·ty
ˌsiNGkrəˈnisədē/Submit
noun
1.
the simultaneous occurrence of events that appear significantly related but have no discernible causal connection.

Yes according to naturalism that isn't in a simulation there could be no casual connection. But I find it interesting to think about.

That is the point of all spiritual exercises IMO.

 

[Elixir]

syn·chro·nic·i·ty
ˌsiNGkrəˈnisədē/Submit
noun
1.
the simultaneous occurrence of events that appear significantly related but have no discernible causal connection.

Yes according to naturalism that isn't in a simulation there could be no casual connection.

Not so. Consider quantum entanglement (a "natural" phenomenon):

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance— ...

 

[Sarpedon]

Or a coincidence. Or a hidden connection.

Seems like a lot of assumption to hang on words like "Appear," and "No Discernable."

 

[excreationist]

...The distinction makes no difference here: Both realizing and suspecting indicate the same thing: a flaw in the simulation....

It shows a very high level of self-consciousness for them to be aware of the true nature of reality. Why is it in many movies and TV series (e.g. Black Mirror, Rick and Morty, The Thirteenth Floor, etc) they discover that it is a simulation? I think it is mainly you who thinks that it should be impossible for a person to be aware that they're in a simulation.

One way religion always falls down on is 'why.' Why did god create the universe? The same is true for the simulated universe theory.

Well in the TV shows and movies that involve a simulation they explain "why". Perhaps the worst reason is from the Matrix where it just involves keeping humans occupied while they are being used as a power source for machines.

There's literally no reason for a simulation to be this detailed.

The goal of a simulation is often to be indistinguishable from what a true reality would be like. Therefore it should be highly detailed. And in a true reality people could have a belief that they are in a simulation so therefore in a simulation they could also have that belief.

Why on earth would the simulation of me need to include all of my extraneous thoughts that don't affect my behavior? The answer supplied by believers in both is the same: 'It is a mystery.'

Well if you're going to simulate the universe (probably in a "level of detail" way) then why not include all of those extraneous thoughts?

Don't get me started on 'how.' That's a flaw that the simulation theory has that the religious one doesn't.

It would use computers and the concept of "level of detail". So things would only show full complexity if they are being observed or detected. There could also be AI that fixes problems you might have in the experience. e.g. there could be non-player characters that you ask about their childhood and then this data is generated rather than their life history existing initially.

Since I'm not religious, I see no reason to entertain a theory that is even worse than religion.

I think that simulations that are virtually indistinguishable from reality will exist in the future. Do you see a problem with that belief? And do you think that there is no reason why people would try to achieve this?

BTW I was thinking - it would be a lot easier for the simulation to look like reality than for the AI in the simulation to seem totally real. The good thing about the Matrix movie is that it is usually using human brains to control the characters in the Matrix rather than using AI.

 

[excreationist]

About "A New Commandment"

I was looking for youtube videos of the song....
Then I came across this one, that doesn't even have any singing but it is making my eyes well up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0A5T9sD8Ug

This is about the only other song that has made me teary that I can remember: (though a lot more teary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B26yJeYY8LU

It also had a link to my childhood - the song had been on a Christian TV ad.

 

[Sarpedon]

It would use computers and the concept of "level of detail". So things would only show full complexity if they are being observed or detected. There could also be AI that fixes problems you might have in the experience. e.g. there could be non-player characters that you ask about their childhood and then this data is generated rather than their life history existing initially.

Oh, I see, what this is a new form of solipsism: Nothing is real, except you. You don't think that every person in the world is being simulated at a high level, just you. Well, Solipsism is famous for being unable to be disproved, but utterly worthless. So I'll just leave it.

Here's a philosophical rule of thumb I use: if a theory revolves around how the person making the theory is special in some way, ignore the theory. Not scientific, not provable, but very useful.

What I am arguing against is that the universe is a simulation for everybody. I'm not going to engage with any form of Solipsism. It is a waste of time.

Well if you're going to simulate the universe (probably in a "level of detail" way) then why not include all of those extraneous thoughts?

Limited computing power? You see, every argument we use against god can be used against this one. We say that an omniscient god is impossible, because there's no way a thing can know itself: a fundamental limit on computing. While you don't posit your machine is omniscient, nevertheless, you are proposing an extremely big machine: one that would have to be bigger than the world it is simulating.

Why is it in many movies and TV series (e.g. Black Mirror, Rick and Morty, The Thirteenth Floor, etc) they discover that it is a simulation? I think it is mainly you who thinks that it should be impossible for a person to be aware that they're in a simulation.

Because the idea that the world is a simulation is a pop culture idea. That is all. It is no different than the UFO and alien abduction fads we used to have. And before that, demonic possession and witchcraft. It is just the latest in a long line of cultural fads that take a (sometimes) scientific idea and run with it.

If this is a simulation, the only reason we'd think it were was if the universe the simulation exists in might itself be a simulation, thus providing the reason for the simulated people to think it is a simulation, without compromising their own. Of course, this idea falls to Occam's razor.

I think that simulations that are virtually indistinguishable from reality will exist in the future. Do you see a problem with that belief? And do you think that there is no reason why people would try to achieve this?

Oh I believe it too. I also believe it will be really expensive. Why would someone pay so much money for the boring, extraneous details of my life?

You see, the same argument I used against alien abduction UFO theories applies here: Yes I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, I don't believe that they spend enormous amounts of money (or resources, if you must) and years of time to travel between the stars to come here and sexually molest people.

So yes I believe that indistinguishable simulations are possible, I don't believe that anyone would build them just to simulate boring, everyday life for billions of people.

 

[Valjean]

Seeing meaningful patterns in random experiences, especially while in emotional turmoil, is more indicative of apophenia than a divine message.

 

[ideologyhunter]

My experiences suggest that our species is uncommonly susceptible to the delusion that we are witnessing will and intention in nature and in the outcomes of random chance.
I was at a faculty orientation years ago when our superintendent decided to share one of those stories that are supposed to awe you or make the hair stand up on your head. A wealthy citizen had just died in our town, a few months after donating the funds to erect a huge aluminum flagpole in the football stadium. On the night he died, the flagpole was struck with a lightning bolt -- apparently at the time the man died. (It gave off a shower of sparks but didn't topple.) A deep murmur went through the audience as our super related this story. I looked around and thought, 'Is everyone here fucking nuts??'
I guess if you're really hot stuff, god marks your passing with lightning. Or something.

 

[phands]

....or coincidence. There are around 8million lightning strikes/day on earth. And then someone erects a big pointy metal pole, which is a lightning rod by any other name....

 

[atrib]

My own experience of life also suggests that an intelligent force exists. And I'm pretty sure we nearly all share the same experience in this respect. It's in fact pretty obvious. So, yeah, there's an intelligent force. So?
EB

(Highlight mine)

No we don't. My life experience suggests the very opposite, that there is no discernible reason or purpose for the existence of our reality and us within it, and that there is no intelligent entity "at the controls", so to speak. So no, I don't believe there is an "intelligence force" at work here, whatever that term might mean to you. And it would be helpful if you were to define what "intelligent force" means to you, so we could all be on the same page.

 

[phands]

My own experience of life also suggests that an intelligent force exists. And I'm pretty sure we nearly all share the same experience in this respect. It's in fact pretty obvious. So, yeah, there's an intelligent force. So?
EB

(Highlight mine)

No we don't. My life experience suggests the very opposite, that there is no discernible reason or purpose for the existence of our reality and us within it, and that there is no intelligent entity "at the controls", so to speak. So no, I don't believe there is an "intelligence force" at work here, whatever that term might mean to you. And it would be helpful if you were to define what "intelligent force" means to you, so we could all be on the same page.

I posted the same sentiment in #9 of this thread. Of course the inconvenient fact that he was utterly wrong has been ignored by him.

 

[Jobar]

Pick any six-digit number, at random. The chances against you picking that exact number are a million to one. But that fact doesn't keep you from picking the number. It might even be that number wins you a lottery, and makes you instantly rich.

There are, what, around 7 billion people in the world? That means that just by simple statistics, some million-to-one occurrence happens to around seven thousand people every day, on average. No miracles needed. No intelligence guiding anything. Just chance.

But if you are the one such extraordinary luck (good or bad) falls to, it's human nature to feel that you are especially singled out. We take instant notice of the extreme positives and negatives! We may well feel specially blessed, or cursed. But we really aren't; it's just the dice all falling in our favor, or to our detriment, with no guidance.

 

[bilby]

....or coincidence. There are around 8million lightning strikes/day on earth. And then someone erects a big pointy metal pole, which is a lightning rod by any other name....

With 8 billion people and 8 million daily lightning strikes, the chances of none of those strikes appearing to be hugely significant to any of those people is vanishingly small.

 

[bilby]

My own experience of life also suggests that an intelligent force exists. And I'm pretty sure we nearly all share the same experience in this respect. It's in fact pretty obvious. So, yeah, there's an intelligent force. So?
EB

(Highlight mine)

No we don't. My life experience suggests the very opposite, that there is no discernible reason or purpose for the existence of our reality and us within it, and that there is no intelligent entity "at the controls", so to speak. So no, I don't believe there is an "intelligence force" at work here, whatever that term might mean to you. And it would be helpful if you were to define what "intelligent force" means to you, so we could all be on the same page.

I posted the same sentiment in #9 of this thread. Of course the inconvenient fact that he was utterly wrong has been ignored by him.

Nah, he's just trying to be clever. My own experience of life also suggests that an intelligent force exists. And I'm pretty sure we nearly all share the same experience in this respect. It's in fact pretty obvious. We call that intelligent force 'me'.

He is taking advantage of your assuming that he is using the same context as the rest of the posters in the thread (a universal or godly intelligence); and is making a statement that while false in the current context, is nevertheless true if taken entirely on its own.

He imagines himself a wit; I estimate that he is 50% correct in this.

 

[phands]

I posted the same sentiment in #9 of this thread. Of course the inconvenient fact that he was utterly wrong has been ignored by him.

Nah, he's just trying to be clever. My own experience of life also suggests that an intelligent force exists. And I'm pretty sure we nearly all share the same experience in this respect. It's in fact pretty obvious. We call that intelligent force 'me'.

He is taking advantage of your assuming that he is using the same context as the rest of the posters in the thread (a universal or godly intelligence); and is making a statement that while false in the current context, is nevertheless true if taken entirely on its own.

He imagines himself a wit; I estimate that he is 50% correct in this.

Which is why my Not Even Wrong response is apposite.