Evolution and the Circle of Life.

[Diamond72]

Good luck convincing "Diamond" of that.

As much luck as you would have getting me to give up a car and go back to a bicycle. If you like the stone age that is fine, but I plan to move on. Perhaps you would like to join an Amish community? But they still use cell phones so even the amish are not exempt from AI.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As much luck as you would have getting me to give up a car and go back to a bicycle. If you like the stone age that is fine, but I plan to move on. Perhaps you would like to join an Amish community? But they still use cell phones so even the amish are not exempt from AI.

I lived for years with no car and only a bicycle. What's the problem with that?

 

[Diamond72]

Either you or your chatbot filibuster like an unprepared undergraduate in a blue book essay.

If you are looking for a piece of paper I do not even have a high school degree.

Bots have Kelvin's IQ:

Absolute Zero.

Good luck defeating them when they come looking for your money.

 

[Diamond72]

I lived for years with no car and only a bicycle. What's the problem with that?

That is wonderful. I sold in an Amish market for years. We respect people who want to live that way. But people can not dictate to me how I want to live. Each individual gets to make that choice for themselves.

 

[Diamond72]

I wonder where the simulator will strike next?

In terms of violence? I talk to the techies at the hospital. The people involved in violence like school shootings have an area of the brain that lights up like a Christmas tree when scanned. So if you want to suppress violent tendencies in people you will have to suppress that part of their brain. Of course, that takes us back to Nurse Ratchet and one flew over the cuckoo nest. Where the chief decided it was better to die than have a lobotomy. Nurse Ratchet in that movie is in the top ten categories of all-time villains. My brother use to joke with his wife and call her a Nurse Ratchet because she was so quick to put people in restraints. Be it chemical or physical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From a scientific perspective, the "Circle of Life" can be seen as a reflection of the natural processes of growth, decay, and regeneration that are present in ecosystems and the natural world.

While the Theory of Evolution and archetypal symbols may seem unrelated at first glance, it's worth noting that both are areas of study that have been shaped by the contributions of many different thinkers and researchers over time. Additionally, both topics can provide valuable insights into different aspects of the human experience and the world around us. However, it's important to distinguish between scientific theories, like the Theory of Evolution, and concepts from other fields, like archetypal symbols, in order to avoid confusion and maintain clarity in our understanding of different subjects.

Jung's work has been influential in the field of psychology and continues to be studied and discussed today, it is generally not considered to be a science in the same way that disciplines like physics or biology are.

I have one brother who has a PhD in Psychology and my other brother is a medical doctor. Doctors send patients to be evaluated by a psychologist all the time. For sexual abuse, learning problems, even they ask for help from Psychology for Tourette syndrome. So your suggestion that Psychology is not valid and accepted by science is simply wrong. The medical Psychiatrist is pretty much a drug pusher in my opinion. But we can have this discussion if you want as to what is and what is not considered to be valid by science.

Not all of Psychology 'is' automatically valid as science, at least not when a theory resides mainly on a philosophical level, such as Jung's does.

No one has to be compelled to accept Jung, especially when there's about a dozen competing schools of thought where Psychology is concerned. So, while I respect the fact that your brothers are educated and I wouldn't knock them on that in the least, one does need to tread carefully and analytically when trapsing through the meadow of theories of the mind.

So, I'm going to ignore the Circle of Life motif and concentrate on what I've already described on a more scientific level, previously.

 

[Diamond72]

So, I'm going to ignore the Circle of Life motif and concentrate on what I've already described on a more scientific level, previously.

While archetypes are not scientific, they are not necessarily unscientific or "wrong." They are a way of conceptualizing and exploring certain aspects of human experience, and can be a valuable tool in understanding ourselves and the world around us.

The circle of life In ecology, for example, the idea of a food web or food chain demonstrates how different organisms in an ecosystem are linked through the transfer of energy and nutrients. This means that the success or failure of one species can have cascading effects throughout the ecosystem, ultimately affecting other species as well.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Did the simulator want Columbine shut down for awhile?

You tell me, you seem to have read His "Users Guide".

In fact you seem to be quite the expert on Chapter 1, "How to Create a Simulation in 6 Days"

 

[Diamond72]

You tell me, you seem to have read His "Users Guide".

In fact you seem to be quite the expert on Chapter 1, "How to Create a Simulation in 6 Days"

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

You tell me, you seem to have read His "Users Guide".

In fact you seem to be quite the expert on Chapter 1, "How to Create a Simulation in 6 Days"

Are you backing down from this statement now?

So with all due respect to Pascal, I'd put my money on the likelihood that reality is a simulation long before I'd put it on the existence of an omnipotent God.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Are you backing down from this statement now?

So with all due respect to Pascal, I'd put my money on the likelihood that reality is a simulation long before I'd put it on the existence of an omnipotent God.

Absolutely not. It's much, much more likely that reality is a simulation created by either some future iteration of ourselves, or an AI, or any one of a countless number of other technologically advanced beings.

But to describe that being as an omnipotent God is probably just a byproduct of attempting to explain a technologically advanced creator to a technologically ignorant creation. Hence we get the false concept of a God because the idea of a Divine God fits within our naturally occurring worldview. I.E our ancestors were predisposed to believing in a deity.

The question is, would that creator choose to interact with its creation, and if so what would that interaction look like? Both to our ancestors and to us. And perhaps most intriguing of all, would that creator have placed "Easter Eggs" within it's creation such that we might someday be able to extrapolate its existence?

 

[AV1611VET]

The question is, would that creator choose to interact with its creation, and if so what would that interaction look like?

Merry Christmas and Happy Easter.

And go visit Israel sometime, while you're at it.

 

[Neutral Observer]

The pinnacle of a circle of life is the fact that we're all living in a simulation. That simulation was created by an AI. That AI was created by us. We are in a way the creators of ourselves, although no one part of that circle exists independent of the others. It's not so much a block universe, as it is a torus. The ultimate circle of life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The pinnacle of a circle of life is the fact that we're all living in a simulation. That simulation was created by an AI. That AI was created by us. We are in a way the creators of ourselves, although no one part of that circle exists independent of the others. It's not so much a block universe, as it is a torus. The ultimate circle of life.

I, for one, hope we reach the end of this circle soon...

 

[Diamond72]

I, for one, hope we reach the end of this circle soon...

Buddism would not be for you then. From what I understand they keep going round and round until they find that perfect balance in life then they can move onto nirvana.

 

[Diamond72]

Absolutely not. It's much, much more likely that reality is a simulation created by either some future iteration of ourselves, or an AI, or any one of a countless number of other technologically advanced beings.

What is the difference between an illusion, delusion, and simulation?

 

[Neutral Observer]

Buddism would not be for you then. From what I understand they keep going round and round until they find that perfect balance in life then they can move onto nirvana.

Well this really depends on the scope of the simulation. Is the simulated reality singular, a la the Copenhagen interpretation, or is it essentially infinite, a la MWI? If it's singular then we may be stuck in the "Eternal Return Paradox" wherein we simply keep repeating the exact same reality over and over again. But if the simulation encompasses an essentially infinite number of potential realities then eventually reaching heaven/nirvana may not be that farfetched of an idea.

If the latter is true then the question becomes is it possible for one iteration of the simulation to interact with another iteration of simulation such that it can influence its path, however weakly, toward a desired outcome? In which case, should we be looking for signs of this influence within our version of the simulation? Are there "Easter Eggs" present in our reality placed there a la '2001: A Space Odyssey', or 'Interstellar'?

Is someone trying to tell us something?

Funny what a human mind can dream up when it refuses to confine itself to convention.

 

[Neutral Observer]

What is the difference between an illusion, delusion, and simulation?

Now that's a question for a Chatbot if I've ever seen one. Because it's far too complicated for me to suss out in one readable forum post.

 

[Halbhh]

Funny what a human mind can dream up when it refuses to confine itself to convention.

A fine line, in that of course people can dream up just anything of course, such as 'flat Earth' etc.

Switching topics just a little, the reason Popper points out that falsifiability as a good quality in science (that a theory can be tested, potentially even falsified) -- and when we point it out, it's not just a personal preference or 'a nice extra to have', etc. -- no, it's rather the only thing we have that can help us know anything in the end, in the sense of knowing what is likely true. If we cannot eliminate theories, than endless competing untestable theories will arrive over time, and in time they will pile up, and we'd not be able to say much on whether one is more likely true than another, or a better path to investigate. (Let me use a hyperbolic example also -- suppose someone proposed there is no such thing as 'left', but there's only 'straight ahead, right or backward'. It would be an interesting theory, but fortunately we could falsify it, and so we wouldn't need to black out the left turn signals on our cars and close down the left turn lanes, etc. and wouldn't need to give driving students tips about how best to select a needed 3 right turns for some routes, etc.)

But with falsifiability, science can progress over time more rapidly, and that's proven to be very potent to find new things that are very useful.

So, instead of worrying that a theory isn't falsifiable, I try to imagine or find ideas about how it might be tested, and am patient. But in the end, if it turns out 20 years later no one can come up with any way to test a theory, we have to admit it really (in a true way) is akin to a fantasy -- not bad, not at all bad, but also not really science, as Sabine Hossenfelder would say. (she's correct in a key way on that)

It's not that it's bad or wrongful or such. It's merely not of the progressing process we think of as the real thing, if it's truly untestable forever.

Better is to fantasize things that can be tested, of course, because that's potentially an avenue to progress.

 

[Diamond72]

Now that's a question for a Chatbot

In summary, an illusion is a perception that is not in line with reality, a delusion is a belief that is not based in reality, and a simulation is a model or representation of a system or process.