Brains in a Vat

[Fairy]

I agree with the above in the sense that it's a truism.

As a student of philosophy, I usually end up thinking about it more and wondering what is a better or more accurate picture of things, and sometimes I wonder if those two conditions (better and accurate) are mutually exclusive to each other, but describe radically different things. I'm always afraid of the calm because I'm afraid of the storm that sometimes follows.

Reality can be anything that thought imposes on it. It can also be simply what it is, just this simple unknowable as it is isness.

So thought imposes a secondary overlay upon this unknowable isness, which appears apparently to change it, where it becomes what that thought says it is, which can be anything at all really. It can’t really be known what it is, except what conceptual thought overlayed upon it says it is.

Probably. Maybe.

[Age]

Do you think scientists will ever come up with artificial reality to the extent that a person would not be able to tell they are in an artificial reality and would mistakenly think they are in reality? And if so, is it possible that we are living in an artificial reality now and don't realize it?

It is obviously possible that you human beings are living in an artificial reality 'now', and you are not realizing that you are.

But, even if you are or not living in an artificial reality, you will always still be living in what is called 'reality'. That is; any and every 'artificial reality' will always be in 'Reality', Itself.

[Age]

Do you think scientists will ever come up with artificial reality to the extent that a person would not be able to tell they are in an artificial reality and would mistakenly think they are in reality? And if so, is it possible that we are living in an artificial reality now and don't realize it?

If we are living in an artificial reality, I think the system must still be in the early stages of development. I can't imagine why anyone would come up with this particular simulation on purpose.

I can think of one very specific reason.

[Age]

Do you think scientists will ever come up with artificial reality to the extent that a person would not be able to tell they are in an artificial reality and would mistakenly think they are in reality? And if so, is it possible that we are living in an artificial reality now and don't realize it?

There are philosophers who consider it possible (to likely) that we are in a simulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

Okay. But how are 'you' defining the word "philosopher" here, exactly?

And, what would it matter if a so-called "philosopher" considered it possible, compared to any other human being?

I think the answer is yes.

Which makes some wonder.

I think that we will be able to come with such a thing technologically. One reason I think this is because everyday life already has people who live in a dream, where ideas are seen as real, and they are not quite connected to specifics. Obviously this is not total, but I see a tendency and often it is surprising how disconnected people can be from experience of others or things, while clearly in the realm of ideas. They experience people and things through very rigid ideas about what they are like.

Yes, there are some great examples of this in this forum here.

Now this can also be argued to be true of all of us, but I think there are significant degrees of difference between individuals and how much, for example. confirmation bias, affects what they think they just read, met, experienced.

Again, there are prime and great examples within this forum.

Then also the way people sink into virtual reality and digital social lives - where everything is presentation, even at the current levels of technology, I think it is likely that with improvements in technology more and more will disappear into these realms. Once you toss AI into the mix, people may well end up in local, individual simulated worlds, interacting with no one.

[Age]

Do you think scientists will ever come up with artificial reality to the extent that a person would not be able to tell they are in an artificial reality and would mistakenly think they are in reality? And if so, is it possible that we are living in an artificial reality now and don't realize it?

If we are living in an artificial reality, I think the system must still be in the early stages of development. I can't imagine why anyone would come up with this particular simulation on purpose.

Neither can I.

If you two are living in an 'artificial reality', and you two cannot even just imagine why anyone would come up with this particular simulation, on purpose, then obviously you two were created without the ability to 'imagine' fully.

Life is lonely and meaningless.

To every one, to some, or to you alone?

And, if you are in an 'artificial reality', then, obviously, 'Life', Itself, is not necessarily lonely and meaningless, at all. But, just what you were created to believe is true, by the creator of the 'artificial reality' that you are within.

I want my money back.

But, where did you get the so-called 'your money' from, exactly?

Obviously, all the money you have obtained was created, and given, to you, by 'your creator'. So, who, exactly, you would give 'that money', which is not 'your money' 'back to' is only to 'the one' who 'gave' it 'to you'.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay. But how are 'you' defining the word "philosopher" here, exactly?

I'm guessing Gary would have asked if he needed help with that word like you do.

And, what would it matter if a so-called "philosopher" considered it possible, compared to any other human being?

Look at the context. He asked about scientists. I didn't know specific scientists, but I did know some philosophers. I was politely making it clear that while I was not directly answering his question regarding scientists, I was going to relay him some information about philosophers who supported that idea. Gary could then choose to ignore this and the link, since he may not have been interested in that, or - It's like I helping a child - he could decide, oh, that might be useful/interesting to explore.

And above you are quoting GC but attributing it to me. No need to make some overblown apology like last time or any apology at all. It's noted now in the thread.

[Age]

If we are living in an artificial reality, I think the system must still be in the early stages of development. I can't imagine why anyone would come up with this particular simulation on purpose.

Neither can I. Life is lonely and meaningless. I want my money back.

I agree that our existence is meaningless,

When you say, 'our existence', are you referring to some 'artificial reality', or to 'Reality', Itself?

Because if it is the latter, then why do you call 'that' 'our existence'.

It is like these people, back then, kept forgetting that they were only a 'part of' of Existence, Itself, and not some owner of Existence, Itself.

And, also, if you are in an 'artificial reality', then that you 'agree' that the so-called 'your existence' is meaningless is, obviously, some thing that is absolutely out of 'your control'.

Furthermore, if you are not existing in an 'artificial reality', at all, and you have 'free will', then why have you 'chosen' to think or believe that 'your own existence' is meaningless?

Do you have any actual proof that it is?

but I don't see that as a bad thing; in fact, I think I prefer it. I don't really like having obligations to fulfil.

Why do you think or believe that you would have obligations if there was meaning to just 'existing'?

After all, from 'the actual answer' to the question, 'What is the meaning of Life?' it can be very clearly inferred that there is absolutely no obligation, at all, to fulfill absolutely any thing, at all.

It just strikes me that, were this a simulation, it would have a purpose built into it, unless it was created by someone who wasn't quite sure what they were doing.

And, what the actual purpose could be is very easy and very simple to imagine.

I suppose it could be God's first attempt at it.

Why would it have to be from God, directly?

[Age]

Neither can I. Life is lonely and meaningless. I want my money back.

I agree that our existence is meaningless, but I don't see that as a bad thing; in fact, I think I prefer it. I don't really like having obligations to fulfil. It just strikes me that, were this a simulation, it would have a purpose built into it, unless it was created by someone who wasn't quite sure what they were doing. I suppose it could be God's first attempt at it.

I just wish all my life savings which I gave to a woman when she needed it most to save her and her daughter from destitution meant something.

Do you know that "she" does not need money, or someone else's so-called 'life savings', 'more', 'now'?

And, if you are in an 'artificial reality', and 'saved' money, during 'your life', then 'that money' was given, to you, and you giving 'that given to you money', to another, was just part of the 'artificial reality'. Which, obviously, you have absolutely 'no control' over, at all.

[Age]

Life is worthless. There's no God, possibly just some 12-year-old programming genius who created the computer that is running this shit simulation I'm living in.

So, 'Life', Itself, could be absolutely 'priceless', as some would say, and there is God, Itself.

But, depending on 'your creator', no matter the 'age', you may well never ever find out and know what the actual Truth is, 'here'.

[Age]

One is living in a reality one thinks one is living in.

I agree with the above in the sense that it's a truism.

As a student of philosophy, I usually end up thinking about it more and wondering what is a better or more accurate picture of things, and sometimes I wonder if those two conditions (better and accurate) are mutually exclusive to each other, but describe radically different things. I'm always afraid of the calm because I'm afraid of the storm that sometimes follows.

Reality can be anything that thought imposes on it.

I know what you are 'meaning', and what you are 'trying to say' here, but, what 'thought' imposes, on 'Reality', Itself, never changes the, actual, 'Thing' that 'Reality', Itself, actually, is.

'Reality' can only ever be the One and only actual Thing that It is.

However, what is True is that what one is 'thinking', and much more so 'believing', then this can have a huge difference on a 'perception of reality', in which influences how they then 'look at' and 'see' things, from then on.

It can also be simply what it is, just this simple unknowable as it is isness.

This one here known as "fairy", still, does not seem to have comprehended and understood, fully, that each time it 'thinks', 'believes', 'claims', and 'states' that 'Reality', or the One, is just 'simply unknowable', then "fairy" is making up its 'own reality', which then influences how it 'looks at' and 'sees' 'Reality', Itself.

Also, and once again, what is 'unknowable' to you, or to others, like you, in the 'olden days', is already 'known', to 'us', HERE-NOW.

So thought imposes a secondary overlay upon this unknowable isness, which appears apparently to change it, where it becomes what that thought says it is, which can be anything at all really.

Including, obviously, that 'It' is 'unknowable', when actually 'It' is not 'just knowable' but 'already known', and 'irrefutably known'.

It can’t really be known what it is, except what conceptual thought overlayed upon it says it is.

Or, there is always 'knowing', itself, which will always override 'conceptual thinking', only.

Also, and by the way, can 'It' really not be ever known, and this is an irrefutable Fact? Or, is this just another 'conceptual thought' existing within the human body that the name and label "fairy" some times uses?

[Age]

Okay. But how are 'you' defining the word "philosopher" here, exactly?

I'm guessing Gary would have asked if he needed help with that word like you do.

Once more, 'this one' will not just clarify, and instead will try to deflect, and deceive, people here.

'This one' comes here, to a philosophy forum, makes claims, but when challenged or just questioned to clarify or elaborate it just will not or cannot do it.

And, what would it matter if a so-called "philosopher" considered it possible, compared to any other human being?

Look at the context. He asked about scientists.

So what?

And, if "gary childress" asked about so-called "scientists", then why did you start talking about "philosophers"?

I didn't know specific scientists, but I did know some philosophers.

So, what 'specific' so-called "philosophers" do you, supposedly, know, exactly?

And, why are you unable to, or just do not want to, just be open and clear here about how you define the "philosopher" word, exactly?

I was politely making it clear that while I was not directly answering his question regarding scientists, I was going to relay him some information about philosophers who supported that idea.

But why not about other human beings? Why only about so-called "philosophers", only?

Gary could then choose to ignore this and the link, since he may not have been interested in that, or - It's like I helping a child - he could decide, oh, that might be useful/interesting to explore.

Among the other countless other variables here.

And above you are quoting GC but attributing it to me.

Okay.

No need to make some overblown apology like last time or any apology at all.

Okay.

It's noted now in the thread.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay. But how are 'you' defining the word "philosopher" here, exactly?

I'm guessing Gary would have asked if he needed help with that word like you do.[/quote]

Once more, 'this one' will not just clarify, and instead will try to deflect, and deceive, people here.

I didn't clarify for you. The post was not directed to you. It was directed to Gary. Gary's quite a nice person, in my experience. If he asks, I'll go into it.

'This one' comes here, to a philosophy forum, makes claims, but when challenged or just questioned to clarify or elaborate it just will not or cannot do it.

I didn't respond to you, regarding a post to Gary. You universalize this, being the de facto solipsist you are.

And, what would it matter if a so-called "philosopher" considered it possible, compared to any other human being?

Look at the context. He asked about scientists.

So what?

And, if "gary childress" asked about so-called "scientists", then why did you start talking about "philosophers"?

You don't really know much about people do you. And you're so ready to find fault, you can't even read to get the context of that sentence, first before leaping. Pompous Idiot.

I didn't know specific scientists, but I did know some philosophers.

So, what 'specific' so-called "philosophers" do you, supposedly, know, exactly?

I linked to that in the original post. If you were interested you could have followed that. But you're not.

And, why are you unable to, or just do not want to, just be open and clear here about how you define the "philosopher" word, exactly?

Here, with you: because you're a pompous idiot.

I was politely making it clear that while I was not directly answering his question regarding scientists, I was going to relay him some information about philosophers who supported that idea.

But why not about other human beings? Why only about so-called "philosophers", only?

I gave information that I thought might be interesting to Gary.

You need a lot of hand holding for information regarding humans despite knowing everything about us.

[Age]

I did not read it because I would have to re-quote it, to be able to respond Accurately, and Correctly.

[Iwannaplato]

I did not read it because I would have to re-quote it, to be able to respond Accurately, and Correctly.

That's fine. You're sticking your nose into a rather old post directed at someone else who won't have your problems understanding some of the things you are asking about and also who knows, himself, if he is interested or not in what I wrote. Of course, it would be fine to engage with an older post, but given your problematic communication/attitudes and lack of understanding of context cues, it's a waste of time.

[Age]

I did not read it because I would have to re-quote it, to be able to respond Accurately, and Correctly.

That's fine. You're sticking your nose into a rather old post directed at someone else who won't have your problems understanding some of the things you are asking about and also who knows, himself, if he is interested or not in what I wrote.

So, do you believe that you can respond to anyone's posts, in any way you like, but if someone else questions or challenges you over the way you respond, you do not have to elaborate, clarify, nor back up and support 'your post' in any way at all?

Of course, it would be fine to engage with an older post, but given your problematic communication/attitudes and lack of understanding of context cues, it's a waste of time.

Yet here you are, continually, supposedly 'wasting your time', responding to my posts, here.