"Virtual Reality " Topic

Two articles that may be of interest:

link

link

Well look on the bright side…

Those of us who are smart enough never to use these devices will be unhindered while the idiots who get struck in Virtual Reality will be there forever.

Linden Lab — the firm behind the role-playing game Second Life, where users spend real money and can get married — is creating another parallel online universe in virtual reality. The world, dubbed Project Sansar, is set to be released in 2016 and gradually expand as users build it out.

Why do I get the impression that this will appeal to those with a poorly developed sense of imagination?

I'm sure it will.

Also those who have the imagination but the inability to get the emotional rush that some of these will undoubtedly offer that they cannot otherwise get. I remember an article from last year (can't find it) but it talked about the folks reacting to the horror story in which they found themselves and their reactions, recoiling, etc. as the game went on.

Which means quite a few individuals in this country.

Thing is can you get them away from their hand held devices long enough to get them hooked on VR?

I wrote a short story about this, set in the next century, where the "WWDB" (worldwide database) is inhabited by c. 95% of the population, 24/7, while their bodies are kept "warm" in "osmosis tubs", while their brains are directly hooked to the WWDB. They live there: with complete control over their own virtual creations/worlds, and sharing them with "friends", etc. It is a horrific "out of the gene pool" future, with that many of the population not reproducing, ergo the human race dying off to c. 5% of its pre-WWDB levels. Actually, that aspect, by itself, is a good thing, for the planet.

Yeah…well…we had Star Wars puppet characters which became CGI characters then back to puppet characters. The advent of 3D TV hasn't exactly overwhelmed us with content. I would expect much the same for VR devices.

Reality isn't everything it's cracked up to be anyway.

The advent of 3D TV hasn't exactly overwhelmed us with content. I would expect much the same for VR devices.

I'm not sure that matters. Look at how many people you see every day tuned out to the real world because they are talking on / texting on / listening to their smart phones. A guy last week in So Cal walked off a cliff to his death doing just that.
link

and that accident isn't unique.

Look at how many folks "live" on their computer playing MMORPGs.

It may not be IMAX with super surround sound, but I'll be it sucks in a lot of folks.

The fact of virtual reality raises the question of what it is, in reality. :) That we are developing it means it exists. Taken forward in time and back as far as our imaginations can carry us, what does the existence of virtual reality imply?

My theory is that everything is "virtual reality" to the Cause OR Existence In The First Place. Existence causes infinite levels of "virtual reality" and then "loses" itself within it. So when we are born here, each sapient, sovereign mind is a piece of that Consciousness immersed in some part of the virtual reality. And when parts of that virtual reality are "tuned out" in order to dabble (lose oneself) in a creation that offers a subgrade virtual reality, that is both inevitable and ironic.

I wouldn't call it sad, necessarily: because there is no such thing as "lost time", since it is Infinite in supply, and we just mosey about within space-time forever. If at some point, this one or that one decides that s/he would rather "tune out" and create their own virtual world to define, how is that essentially any different from what Existence In The First Place is always doing?…

I'd better slip into my "osmosis tub" a bit more until I can "grok" what GWA a is talking about. Like why is "Existence In The First Place" capitalized?

Existence In The First Place….

Huh??????

For some incredibly sad folks virtual reality is far more real than actual reality.

"EITFP" is as "far back" as our imaginations can go. There is no beginning to existence, it is inarguable, and therefore it transcends all things that are parts of itself. I think of EITFP as "God".

Virtual Reality is only a subpar experience to the "real thing" in the sense that you are not enjoying the physical world of your developed senses and well cared for body when you are plunked into an "osmosis tub", with your muscles electronically stimulated to keep them from atrophying beyond a sustainable point, your bodily waste carried off, and your nutritional requirements seen to by intravenous feeding. So the real world of the five senses is given up in order to "enjoy" the make believe worlds of the mind. Via the WWDB, anyone can meet anyone else in any of those make believe worlds. Thus a further "level" of virtual reality is experienced until death, at which point the mind returns to whatever/wherever we reside while we put ourselves through this mortal life, a "virtual reality" experience to immortals, for whatever reason or complex of reasons. The irony is that while living in this virtual reality, we invent virtual reality, and retreat from this "original" one: thus probably subverting the reasons why we decided to be here in the first place.

I don't know that its sad, though, since we have unlimited time and unlimited opportunities to do this again and again….

I am Groot

Pleased to meetcha. Care to elaborate?…

YouTube link

VR where the lame can run, the blind can see, that girl/guy who could never even hope to get a date can be queen/king of the universe.

It may not be for me today, however, I have had times in my life when I we temporary disabled. My world was limited to two rooms in the house for a couple of weeks. Thanks God it was not my entire world.

"EITFP" is as "far back" as our imaginations can go.

Well our knowledge goes back to the Initial Singularity that started the Planck Epoch of the Big Bang. I'm not sure how important our imaginations are in this case. I could imagine the Big Bang starting because Invisible Pink Pixies willed it thus. Doesn't mean it corresponds to reality one bit.

There is no beginning to existence, it is inarguable…..

I think Lawrence Krauss has a good argument against it.

…..and therefore it transcends all things that are parts of itself.

Sorry, don't understand the word salad. Do you mean like my house "transcends" my living room?

I think of EITFP as "God".

The Church of the Holy Singularity?

…well cared for body when you are plunked into an "osmosis tub", with your muscles electronically stimulated to keep them from atrophying beyond a sustainable point, your bodily waste carried off, and your nutritional requirements seen to by intravenous feeding.

If wastes are carried off and nutrients are given intravenously, then what is the osmosis part for?

VR where the lame can run, the blind can see, that girl/guy who could never even hope to get a date can be queen/king of the universe.

And Bowman can have endless sex with Brazilian Supermodels?

That would be the most likely way to make the most money on it.

Lacking terminology to describe an as-yet to be invented process and the hardware to see it done, I resorted to "osmosis" to convey an idea of the body lying inert while being kept alive. Don't picture actual tubes into veins for the "feeding" part, nor poop and pee coming out and then being removed from the water/liquids of the tub. The "waste" is removed through something like osmosis, and nutrients are administered in the same manner.

Your house transcends a livingroom because it is what contains all the rooms. Existence contains everything manifesting "in" or rather from it. Referring to Existence As God is nothing new. But it is also incapable of being transcended, therefore the concept must come closer to the reality of what Existence/God Is than any other concept.

Even "singularity" is only a perception of ours, within the world of humans. We are inescapably locked into the moment, yet perceive existence as an endless "chain" of moments.

I would never allow myself to be restricted to a religion that fixes itself on a title for "God". Mormons and others call him God the Father, and give him a finite body of "flesh and bones"; in order to more easily conceive of a relationship with him. But nobody should feel restricted to less than their own imaginations can come up with. I believe that our 'satiable imaginations are the conduit that "God" establishes for communication with each one of us individually….

I resorted to "osmosis" to convey an idea of the body lying inert while being kept alive.

That's what I thought. Osmosis is an actual term and process however. It means the movement of molecules across a semi-permeable membrane due to a density gradient of the solvents. It's how our kidneys remove urea from our blood to we can pee it out. Or how trees move water upwards from their roots. Or how you correctly remove a leech from your skin by sprinkling salt on it, and conversely why you wrinkle up when too long in the bath.

Even "singularity" is only a perception of ours, within the world of humans. We are inescapably locked into the moment, yet perceive existence as an endless "chain" of moments.

Well the Initial Singularity is more than a perception. It is a state, inferred by detailed observations of how matter behaves and is distributed throughout the observable universe.

We deduce it's existence in the same way we deduce the existence of the ancient Romans, by detailed observations of the artifacts that they have left behind (architecture, infrastructure, writings, daily items and objects, artwork, etc.)

Unfortunately, none of us were alive to directly observe either situation.

I believe that our 'satiable imaginations are the conduit that "God" establishes for communication with each one of us individually….

So my insatiable imagination came up with invisible Pink Pixies. Where do they come in the theological spectrum?

Here's my more mundane take on the imagination. It is a quality we evolved when we evolved a more complex cerebral cortex. The former is a manifestation of the latter. It was just one more skill we developed that kept us alive. Let's take the phenomenon of pariedola. It is the imagination making us see patterns and images where there are actually none.

So you are walking alone in a dangerous jungle. You see a maze of shadows and light interplaying. You imagine you may see bits of a tiger and you run away. That is a good defensive use of your imagination that keeps you alive. (Even if there was no tiger this time). Therefore, you remain alive long enough to be able to breed and raise equally imaginative offspring.

Or you burn your toast and see the Virgin Mary in the bread. That may not be such a good thing, depending on your background and biases.

So all thoughts are not equally valid, neither are all the products from our imaginations equally valid. Imagination is very important (especially in Science) however all imaginings are not created equally. Some are downright insane and dangerous. Some, like my Invisible Pink Pixies, are just stupid.

So my insatiable imagination came up with invisible Pink Pixies. Where do they come in the theological spectrum?

Yes. But you weren't being serious. You were engaging in conversation. Had you seriously contemplated "pink pixies", for whatever reason, would you put a limit on how "God" relates to you and say that "God" could/would not manifest from "Pink Pixidom"?

Everything evolved. The best, most complete evidence says that the world of humans evolved out of earlier causes already in place. "Singularity" focuses our theorizing on the exact instant of "Cause"; beyond which, only our imaginations can take us.

Our evolved imagination, in its fulsome capacity to distract us from immediate surroundings and dangers, can also get us killed. How is that a good thing, evolutionarily speaking? How did our ancestors escape the saber toothed tigers with their heads down, naval gazing?

Coincidences arise from happenstance, and "evolve" into "enemy action". If we are aware enough to not dismiss reoccurrences. "And so it is with God." Nothing is pushed in our faces. Everything is already in our face. Eternity is the quintessence of patience.

Pink Pixies are not stupid. They are facile. You resort to them often when you've bothered to stick pins in yourself by responding to me, aaagain. :) I find the opportunity to refine my verbiage and thought processes rewarding. Thank you.

Here's the deal vis-à-vis human thought: it is unique in our observation (I have said that umpteen times). It arose out of causes transcending our physical presence in the world of humans. Why? Why bother evolving such a self-aware intellect? What is it for? Any manner and number of lesser intelligences get along just fine without all of this abstract, imaginative, manipulative thinking. It seems to be a case of going way, way too far: much farther than necessary to "get the job done". So how do we deal with that? Ignore our 'satiable imaginations as a mere aberration of evolution and get on "being mammals"? ing and eating and sleeping. Nope. That won't fly. We can't help ourselves. Our capacity to THINK keeps drawing us away to more involved "projects". Or problems. We are always noticing things that keep us from noticing the saber toothed tiger. The things we constantly contemplate, the "naval gazing", get us killed if we indulge when we need to keep our heads up. So we do both. Other animals don't do the former, only the latter; unthinkingly, unwittingly. We are not like them.

A belief in the Virgin Mary can lead us to a stronger desire to believe in and understand "God". Seeing her image in a piece of burned toast can only come AFTER believing in her and ergo "God". An aboriginal would see nothing, or probably the profile of his mum if he saw anything. So, the Virgin Mary isn't IN the burned toast: only the awareness of her beforehand, leading to imagining her perceived image in mundane things. What we do with that depends on the complexity of human thought and experience. I won't do anything with it, because I know that coincidences engaging the human imagination are especially facile regarding human facial features: I seem them, have done so before my first conscious memory of childhood, and all of my life. Right now, I can look at the wood grain in my desk and see "faces".

So we can go on and on this way to no purpose.

The fundamental question of Existence In The First Place remains and always will. We separate out the serious questions from the silly/stupid ones. "God" approaches us through the thoughts we have that are serious efforts on our part to learn more….

Pink Pixies are not stupid. They are facile. You resort to them often when you've bothered to stick pins in yourself by responding to me, aaagain. :) I find the opportunity to refine my verbiage and thought processes rewarding. Thank you.

You seem to give incredible credence to anything that is the product of our imagination. I don't and that is why the the Pixies are always invoked in our conversations.

How did our ancestors escape the saber toothed tigers with their heads down, naval gazing?

Because your made up scenario probably never happened. If it did, then that individual wouldn't have survived. It just goes against the behaviour of any ape.

Here's the deal vis-à-vis human thought: it is unique in our observation (I have said that umpteen times).

It's unique simply because we killed off (either directly or indirectly) all the other intelligent hominids.

It arose out of causes transcending our physical presence in the world of humans. Why?

Sorry, I disagree. We inherited our intelligence from our intelligent predecessors who existed prior to humans. It arose out of causes that put selective pressure for intelligence.

Our capacity to THINK keeps drawing us away to more involved "projects". Or problems. We are always noticing things that keep us from noticing the saber toothed tiger. The things we constantly contemplate, the "naval gazing", get us killed if we indulge when we need to keep our heads up.

Again this does not happen, outside of individuals that aren't paying attention.. The prototypical people who invented "naval gazing" (chanting and meditating whilst in a yogic lotus position) were the pre-aryan denizens of the Indus Valley. They had to contend with Bengal tigers and Indian lions. They seemed to survive well enough to build one of the world's earliest civilizations. Your point is moot.

You're not seriously trying to make the argument that our intelligence could not have been a product of our evolution?

So, the Virgin Mary isn't IN the burned toast: only the awareness of her beforehand, leading to imagining her perceived image in mundane things.

Yes. We like to see patterns or images, even when there are none. Everyone of us has pariedolia. Just stare at clouds for a minute or so.

Right now, I can look at the wood grain in my desk and see "faces".

That means you are normal and have a normal imagination.

The fundamental question of Existence In The First Place remains and always will.

But I may be interested in a different one from you. I have no interest in deifying a physical process simply because we have a poor understating of it. I derive enough satisfaction from simple understanding. As Douglas Adams succinctly put it, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I concur but your mileage may vary.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

No.

I derive enough satisfaction from simple understanding.

Yep. And some folks simple understanding includes the presence of garden fairies.

It's unique simply because we killed off (either directly or indirectly) all the other intelligent hominids.

That's your favorite theory, of course, since it answers the question of why our kind of thinking is unique. But the chances of a "lot" of sapient species being "killed off by us directly or indirectly" is only believable if you also ascribe to the Liberal notion that humans are evil.

Actually, the chances of ALL other sapient species being killed off, leaving only ourselves, are remote in the extreme. No supporting theories are shown how this happened; only a bald-faced assertion that our solitary species "proves" that the "others" died out.

You're not seriously trying to make the argument that our intelligence could not have been a product of our evolution?

Actually, I am. There is every evidence that Virtual Reality, since it EXISTS here and now, and invented by us, is behind all of evident existence. That means that intellect, sapience, is not part and product of this physical world at all, but causes it. It CREATES it.

I have no interest in deifying a physical process simply because we have a poor understating of it.

Somehow I can't see "God" "deifying" himself. Existence Is What It Is. That finite beings deify is part of the landscape. We will always have an incomplete understanding of "God" (Infinite Existence), but I wouldn't say that our understanding is, and must necessarily remain, poor. Understanding is not the same thing as empirical comprehension: we can apprehend without comprehension….

That's your favorite theory, of course, since it answers the question of why our kind of thinking is unique. But the chances of a "lot" of sapient species being "killed off by us directly or indirectly" is only believable if you also ascribe to the Liberal notion that humans are evil.

Its not my theory. I'm not a paleontologist or archaeologist. Read what they say about the extinction of H. Erectus, H. Neanderthalis and H. Heidelbergensis. All three species ended once H. Sapiens came in contact with them. All 4 species had large brain cases and therefore of high intelligence. That is why I say out thinking became unique only after the others died out.

If you think that we hunted down and killed the other Homo species then you have to read a bit more on this topic. Here's one teaser:

link

And what's this about Liberals thinking humans are evil? Are you serious? Honestly that comment was breathtakingly stupid.

Actually, the chances of ALL other sapient species being killed off, leaving only ourselves, are remote in the extreme. No supporting theories are shown how this happened; only a bald-faced assertion that our solitary species "proves" that the "others" died out.

Read some of the science.

That means that intellect, sapience, is not part and product of this physical world at all, but causes it. It CREATES it.

The study of the evolution of the human brain and intelligence is a pretty solid field. You'd do well to look into it.

Somehow I can't see "God" "deifying" himself.

That's because you read my comment incorrectly. Good try.

And some folks simple understanding includes the presence of garden fairies.

Cool. Any pictures?

And what's this about Liberals thinking humans are evil? Are you serious? Honestly that comment was breathtakingly stupid.

My assertion is founded on the "breathtakingly stupid" things that "they" say humans are doing to the planet. I'm all for conservation as much as the next man. But I'm not going to claim that humans make the world worse by being in it. "Evil" has connotations. Perhaps I struck a nerve?…

Perhaps I struck a nerve?…

No, you hit my "Baloney Detector" (care of Carl Sagan).

Haha! Bowman +1.

The "consensus" says that humans are altering the planet's sustainability. The human impact is now so great that we are "destroying the planet". (we are evil)

We can, and are, hunting and exploiting species of animals and trees to extinction. We put pollution into the air, ground and water. (we are evil)

But we are ONE factor out of many, many factors constantly at work in the universe, on this planet.

If we disappeared today, the planet, all by itself, would continue to alter itself through those other many, many factors still at work: including the extinction of whole species of plants and animals. The weather would change due to climate change.

So why should we put our everything into fiddling with climate change?

Better to just increase our technology as rapidly as we can, so that we can adapt. That's what our species' special "evolved" trait has given us: the capacity to imagine and then build it. If the planet is, sooner or later, going to change right out from under us, we had better have a backup plan for survival. That does not include allowing some privileged (literally "jet set") segment of our species to "buy" their privileges, while everyone else is legislated into a marginalized lifestyle….

The human impact is now so great that we are "destroying the planet". (we are evil)

Non-sequitur.

We put pollution into the air, ground and water. (we are evil)

Non-sequitur.

Ignorantly damaging the environment does not mean evil. Grow up with this "Liberals think humans are evil" nonsense. You are dragging this conversation down to kindergarten level.

If we disappeared today, the planet, all by itself, would continue to alter itself through those other many, many factors still at work: including the extinction of whole species of plants and animals. The weather would change due to climate change.

So why should we put our everything into fiddling with climate change?

A pretty clear indication that you are NOT aware of the issues involved.

That's your favorite theory, of course, since it answers the question of why our kind of thinking is unique. But the chances of a "lot" of sapient species being "killed off by us directly or indirectly" is only believable if you also ascribe to the Liberal notion that humans are evil.

The Aug 2015 issue of Scientific American had an article on how our species migrated into and conquered the planet. Of course, there is no single answer to that.

First the facts about H Sapiens migrations:

75-100 tya -leave Africa
55 tya -arrive in SE Asia- Denisovan extinctions
45 tya -arrive in Europe -megafauna and Neanderthal extinctions
45 tya – arrive in Australia -megafauna extinctions
35 tya -arrive in Asian arctic
14 tya -arrive in North American -megafauna extinctions
13.5 tya -arrive in South America -megafauna extinctions

Reasons given for our success and the extinction of archaic hominids:

1) Larger brain, deeper folds of the cerebrum and better problem solving. Allows H Sapiens to acclimatize quicker and cope with unfamiliar challenges.

2) better tool technology to hunt animals and dispatch enemies. Development of a thrown spear.

3) microliths supporting the existence of bows and projectile weapons. Development of microliths is correlated to decrease in Neanderthal populations.

4) Longer lifespan wrt Neanderthals

5) Greater socialization wrt Neanderthals. Evidence indicates H Sapiens working/hunting in teams. No such evidence for Neandethals. Neanderthal groups were mostly from 5-10 individuals, wrt 30+ for H. Sapiens.

6) greater variety of terrestrial food sources than Neanderthals. Done by studying fossilized feces.

7) Utilizing marine resources such as eating fish and the collection of seaweed and shellfish as food sources. Therefore able to live in coastal areas.

7) Warfare? Comparative studies show that Neanderthal skeletons are much younger and show greater amounts of trauma wrt H. Sapiens skeletons.

8) Possible more complex speech. While both H Sapiens and Neanderthals contain the FOXP2 gene that allows language development, the Neanderthals had certain anatomic features that would hamper speech (poorly developed hypoglossal canal, low developed mental protuberance and mentalis muscles, etc.

9) Evidence of butchered Neanderthal bones suggest the existence of cannibalism. Analysis of Neanderthal middens indicate animal and Neanderthal bones with same butchering markings.

All these reasons may play a part in the direct or indirect extinction of the Neanderthals when in contact with H. Sapien tribes. Try as I might I couldn't find any scientist saying that H. Sapiens succeeded because they were "evil".

"Cool. Any pictures?"

Not yet but still hopeful. Don't have any of the special photog gear like the ghost hunters, and don't know how well a simple camera will do.

Good luck on that, JJ. Me, I'm a bit more empirically minded, but you never know…

I see. I've committed the same error as using the word "God". "Evil" means very different things to different people.

How about addressing the likelihood of this life being a virtual reality experience? That seems to have been dropped in the last several/many postings….

Not yet but still hopeful.

Don't hold your breath, ghosts and garden fairies don't exist.

I see. I've committed the same error as using the word "God". "Evil" means very different things to different people.

It does? You mean like the term "osmosis"? I was using a typical dictionary usage of "evil" when arguing with your comments. If you meant something radically different then another, more accurate, term may have been useful.

How about addressing the likelihood of this life being a virtual reality experience? That seems to have been dropped in the last several/many postings….

Well that's how conversations work. You opened up that avenue with your comments on the uniqueness of our intelligence and that intelligence could not be something that evolved. I thought challenging those points was more interesting than the original topic.

As for life being virtual reality, I've read Plato's Republic and remember the Allergory of the Cave. Don't buy it. How would you tell the difference between life being a virtual reality as opposed to life being just reality? It's just not that interesting a topic.

Deciding one point of view is the "right" one and going with it would make a difference in how you approached living.

Deciding that this entire world is just a construct that "you" determined beforehand would affect your outlook considerably. Had you been a religious person that could turn you irreligious. Had you been an "evil" person that could make you entirely "lost" to the appeal of conscience.

But if you had been an atheist and you decided that something bigger is behind this world, making it happen, it might start your thoughts upon a path that leads to the Cause. Believing in something behind existence that is infinitely bigger than even my seemingly infinite capacity to think and imagine has the effect, at the very least, of looking beyond myself for answers, since I am confident that infinite knowledge is behind what is apparent in this world….

Deciding that this entire world is just a construct that "you" determined beforehand would affect your outlook considerably.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean here. How are you defining "construct"? Like "The Matrix"? How could I have determined it beforehand? The Earth existed long before I got to the scene.

But if you had been an atheist and you decided that something bigger is behind this world, making it happen, it might start your thoughts upon a path that leads to the Cause.

Again, I'm having a hard time trying to discern what you mean. By "something bigger" being behind this world, do you mean a supernatural being that transcends physical reality? If so, then I'd have to say that I see no convincing evidence of that.

Believing in something behind existence that is infinitely bigger than even my seemingly infinite capacity to think and imagine has the effect, at the very least, of looking beyond myself for answers, since I am confident that infinite knowledge is behind what is apparent in this world….

What does that mean? I'm not sure I think anything is "behind existence". I think existence is all there is…..I guess I'm a materialist that way. Belief isn't a big thing with me, at least not in a theological context. It's like when people ask me, "Do you believe in flying saucers?" I tell them the question is phrased incorrectly. My belief is an extraneous issue and has no bearing on anything. Do I think that there is any compelling evidence that alien space craft have been visiting the Earth? The answer to that is no.

If I say, "I believe I would die, if I fell from a 10 story balcony" it doesn't mean that I have a belief system in a theological sense pertaining to falling out of balconies. The term "belief" is just a conversational place holder for "a reasonable probability outcome, considering my understanding of physics and the distances involved". Wouldn't most people think that way?

Maybe we should continue this elsewhere and spare everyone else.

Bowman +1, again, especially regarding the informal, conversational use of the term "belief."

Believing is what you accept when you "see" something. This is inside your head. It won't go away once it is "found" there. You cannot banish thoughts. A new way of looking at something, or an entirely new thought/concept, is there until it is replaced by a "better", or more interesting, or more compelling one. The previous concept fades because it is no longer alive, no longer important. So "seeing is believing" is as real with concepts as with your own physical eyes. Actually, more so. Because we doubt our own senses all the time. And what we saw once will fade in the memory and become less vital. We require continual "seeing" in order to maintain belief.

"The Matrix" is constantly invoked in the discussion of "virtual reality". The plot made our entire world out to be a fake. Our senses were tricked into believing the "balance" of factors defining the "real world".

So of course, the "something bigger" behind the merely perceived virtual world was responsible for its existence in the collective minds inhabiting this virtual world. The reality was a planet occupied by an alien intelligence intent on perpetual exploitation. The concept is a creepy one, and all the more derided for its creepiness.

The core question of what existence is remains even after exposing The Matrix as reality: where do the exploitative alien intellects come from? What is behind their existence?

How could you not "see" that physical reality is not existence? Your own thoughts transcend physical reality constantly. The vast majority of brain activity has zero connection with the physical needs of the person. At this exact moment, my mind is far away from this chair, desk, room or almost full bladder. Both at the same time: here and "out there somewhere", seeking, always seeking. This is what we do. It's how we're made. We are always wanting more than we have and are. We are Infinite. So why are we here and what are we really?

That we have already created virtual reality that has the power to mess with our senses, or that our senses can empower, to create "other worlds", on a rudimentary, infantile level, means that the phenomenon of creating "other worlds" and inserting ourselves deliberately inside of them exists. We have already started doing it.

What are the chances that this is unique or the first time? I'd say practically zero. The implications for this apparently physical world are immense.

If physical reality is a "construct", that doesn't make it any less a part of Existence.

"This is the way it's been done for billions of years." – Carl Sagan

Believing is what you accept when you "see" something…….We require continual "seeing" in order to maintain belief.

Starting off already with a false premise. Like my example of going over a 10 story balcony, I don't have to see someone do it or experience it for myself to "believe" I would die. Planning complex cognitive behavior, decision making, and moderating social behavior is what I do with my pre-frontal cortex. I don't have to continuously "see" anything.

How could you not "see" that physical reality is not existence?

Did I say that anywhere? Also, did you really need two negatives in that sentence to obfuscate your point any further?

Your own thoughts transcend physical reality constantly.

Well here we will have to diverge sharply. My own thoughts are fabricated in my cerebral cortex from electrical impulses moving along axons and dendrites created by the movement of sodium and potassium ions across a semi permeable membrane. Physical, physiological and chemical damage anywhere along this system can impair thought. It is certainly a part of physical reality.

As a side note, I sometimes sedate patients with Triazolam. It interferes with a lot of neurological functions including thought formation and cognition, by simply interfering with GABA re-uptake in the synapses. I must be transcending reality when I do that. But what the hell do I know?

"This is the way it's been done for billions of years." – Carl Sagan

I'm not sure you should invoke Carl Sagan in support of the word salad above. You clearly haven't read his "Demon Haunted World", have you? It is somewhat more relevant to this discussion than "Contact".

I don't have to continuously "see" anything.

Being literal about the "eyes", I see. :) "Seeing", as in "Oh, I see now." Of course, seeing with the eyes is part of that in many cases.

Physical, physiological and chemical damage anywhere along this system can impair thought. It is certainly a part of physical reality.

You are only talking about the interface, the "mechanical" method of channeling thoughts originating from the mind. Analogously the computer that controls the virtual reality, if it goes "bad", will have serious affects upon that virtual reality; in extreme failures the "world" shuts down. Virtual death. None of this addresses what is behind the existence of thought.

The alien talking to Dr Arroway said also "See, in all our searching, the only thing we found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other." Each mind is a piece of "God's Mind", and by meeting and learning to know each other, we learn more about "God's Mind." I read Sagan's meaning into that concept. He didn't think of "God" when he created that plot device, that concept of virtual "forever" beings searching through their own "emptiness", and finding endless existence peopled by sapient minds also searching individually. Nothing more comes from their searching than finding those also questing to know what existence is, and only answering through each other. There is no final "answer", because there is no final quantity to Infinity or Eternal Life.

Sagan was proposing something infinitely bigger than the physical, empirical world of the five senses. He was proposing that he believed in something bigger than mere science of the five senses.

Demon Haunted World has nothing to do with the fundamental question of why existence instead of nothing. Sagan is pointing out the power of inherited beliefs coloring reality. Religion creates its own demons. So do utterly irreligious people. I used to think that superstition was on the wane in today's pragmatic, educated world. Silly me.

Skeptical thinking can only focus on specific claims, not on existence in the first place, which is truly the only inarguable fact we all share.

The enormity of Existence In The First Place becomes "God" at some point along the process of contemplating that question….

Being literal about the "eyes", I see. :) "Seeing", as in "Oh, I see now."

Here's the first problem.

You seem to try to make a rather complicated and involved argument here. If you want to relay the point of "understanding", or "being cognizant of", or "being sensitive to", or "having insight towards"……..then please use those specific words instead of the more conversational but vague "seeing".

This brings me to the second problem.

I'm sure your posts seem logical and well presented to you. Unfortunately they seem to be "word salad" to me. I fail to see the point you are making.

You are only talking about the interface, the "mechanical" method of channeling thoughts originating from the mind. Analogously the computer that controls the virtual reality, if it goes "bad", will have serious affects upon that virtual reality; in extreme failures the "world" shuts down. Virtual death. None of this addresses what is behind the existence of thought.

What do you think Sagan would have made of this stuff?

Demon Haunted World has nothing to do with the fundamental question of why existence instead of nothing.

Existence instead of nothing? That's the first time you brought that up. "Demon Haunted World" seems like your world view to me. You'd do well to look at the book.

"And Sagan did grin". I think he'd get a kick out of poking holes in everything I say. And he'd admit that science is for "five senses" exploring only; yet there is much more going on with existence than the five senses.

How is that a "Demon Haunted World"?…

The enormity of Existence In The First Place becomes "God" at some point along the process of contemplating that question….

HUH??????

All due respect, reality is forcibly constrained by the hard and fast natural laws, regardless of any 'New Age' claptrap interpretation. Now, if you want to equate the Law of Gravity, the Laws of Thermodynamics, et al with 'God', that's your problem. Me, I don't…

Existence In The First Place is a wordy way of saying "Cause". Thermodynamics and everything related must have a Cause. Everything is "God" manifesting.

The Cause is all there Is. "That's heavy, man …" I know. You have to be in a state where this kind of talk resonates. But talk is all I/we have. And that's kind of annoying, since so much more goes on than can possibly be described in words….