Unshakable feeling this world is imaginary

We are very ignorant to the state of reality and our hubris limits the development of understanding...
 
Would that still be considered the same as a simulation?

No it's closer to a classical model "fall from grace" which still firmly plants the earliest origins of the universe in a Godly realm of powerful design, whether benevolent or not. "The fall" is a necessary part of the theological model to justify the fallibility of running around experiencing the mortal plane, full of crimes and sins and decay which doesn't match the power of a godly origin

So if omnipotence is behind a flawed system, the explanation is to give us the chance to rise to power in our universe. This takes the "original sin" form in christianity where the rise to power is morality flavored. In shintoism or taoism it might take the form of "man with nature" harmony which is more naturalism flavored. Or buddhists, stoics, certain classic models infuse their rise to power with "mindset" harmony which favors attitudes and ideals

Closest theological models to "simulation" style format would be hardcore semiotic post structuralists, certain anti-cartesian, almost descartian idelogies like jaques lacan's model or hegelian/kantian guys who wanted inherent meanings stripped from their existence models
 
Lacanian models are fun because his "jouissance" pursuit of hedonism style passions is favored more than finding out who the puppet maker is for your universe. Several french post structuralists get really Dionysian festival styled where they write in extremely technical and long-winded essays that life is a glass of booze and a boat, and that ontological models only do our heads in with worry

If you throw his entire school of thought out, that's fine but he at least nailed the idea of the "symbolic order" predating a ton of semiotic studies that only came to prominence decades later
 
No it's closer to a classical model "fall from grace" which still firmly plants the earliest origins of the universe in a Godly realm of powerful design, whether benevolent or not. "The fall" is a necessary part of the theological model to justify the fallibility of running around experiencing the mortal plane, full of crimes and sins and decay which doesn't match the power of a godly origin

So if omnipotence is behind a flawed system, the explanation is to give us the chance to rise to power in our universe. This takes the "original sin" form in christianity where the rise to power is morality flavored. In shintoism or taoism it might take the form of "man with nature" harmony which is more naturalism flavored. Or buddhists, stoics, certain classic models infuse their rise to power with "mindset" harmony which favors attitudes and ideals

Yea, Buddhism and Hinduism don't seem very simulation like to me even though they have that whole life is an illusion thing going on.
 
Lacanian models are fun because his "jouissance" pursuit of hedonism style passions is favored more than finding out who the puppet maker is for your universe. Several french post structuralists get really Dionysian festival styled where they write in extremely technical and long-winded essays that life is a glass of booze and a boat, and that ontological models only do our heads in with worry

If you throw his entire school of thought out, that's fine but he at least nailed the idea of the "symbolic order" predating a ton of semiotic studies that only came to prominence decades later
Smile now, cry later. Yolo!
 
But that's why some of my favorite existence models are the fucking semiotics guys

Good lord semiotics guys.

You would think any theory surrounding signs and their signifiers would be open-shut, that school of thought grows up to teach a little grammar in school, draft a few encyclopedias but no. Word studies theorists can literally prove your existence is nothing without sign/signifiers being made up as we go along, picking and choosing our value systems that stick to it

The physical rock? Not even as close to as "real" or existence-justifying as the concept of rock, the understanding of the word rock or any recognizable symbols mapped to rocks. The idea means more than the thing itself in semiotics, which is very simulacrum style

Non-verbal species? Still filtering everything you see through the sorting system of speech, with pattern recognition, identifying threats hell, recognizing what your own species looks like. All language. Without assigning values to your sensation as a living organism, your world shrinks to an undicipherable gray smear, and your own existence stops making activity (or patterns) in the natural world because nothing becomes incentivized by your understanding

In short, you don't do a whole lot when you stop filtering symbols. You obey body processes sure, but you're a vegetable without impulse coded to something

So for semiotics traditionalists, language and symbology is your god
 
Last edited:
Yea, Buddhism and Hinduism don't seem very simulation like to me even though they have that whole life is an illusion thing going on.

There's a great debate in text interpretation where some scholars insist krishna's teachings (like christ's teachings) reflect the sublime incorporeal of what "waits for our understanding in death" while others say that's entirely wrong, that these teachings are meant to be read as what the mortal realm really is right now as we live in it despite how it makes us feel, and that if enlightenment is attainable or part-experienced on earth, that the "life is an illusion" stuff isn't meant to be a lofty larger plane, but in the smallest plane of existence we see day to day

I call bullshit though, because ontological models at least waited until existence winked out for thinkers before claiming there would be a big reveal

If according to many eastern religion models we are living in the "sublime" that just hasn't been recognized i can sympathize, but too many organisms are snuffed out before given that chance to understand, and so the "striving" for understanding gets absolutely buggered by real pain and suffering visited upon its inhabitants, so steeply so that it unmakes people and things with vast irregularity which means your 'existence striving to prove its sublimity through reveals and mindset discipline' gets absolutely demolished by unavoidable externals

Try fitting brain cancer in children into your ontological, "human alongside nature" or "mindset" theology, because as Stephen Frye expertly puts it you can't. Or the existence of parasites that target un-born or infant organisms. Eye burrowing ants. That sort of striving model that never gets to grow up
 
But that's why some of my favorite existence models are the fucking semiotics guys

Good lord semiotics guys.

You would think any theory surrounding signs and their signifiers would be open-shut, that school of thought grows up to teach a little grammar in school, draft a few encyclopedias but no. Word studies theorists can literally prove your existence is nothing without sign/signifiers being made up as we go along, picking and choosing our value systems that stick to it

The physical rock? Not even as close to as "real" or existence-justifying as the concept of rock, the understanding of the word rock or any recognizable symbols mapped to rocks. The idea means more than the thing itself in semiotics, which is very simulacrum style

Non-verbal species? Still filtering everything you see through the sorting system of speech, with pattern recognition, identifying threats hell, recognizing what your own species looks like. All language. Without assigning values to your sensation as a living organism, your world shrinks to an undicipherable gray smear, and your own existence stops making activity (or patterns) in the natural world because nothing becomes incentivized by your understanding

In short, you don't do a whole lot when you stop filtering symbols. You obey body processes sure, but you're a vegetable without impulse coded to something
Interesting stuff. I know as I have been watching videos on philosophy over the last couple of weeks on the Khan University app they had a whole section on linguistics but I didn't see anything on semiotics. Intersting stuff.
 
It is compleyely simulated in your brain. Your brain is yaking info and creating yoir reality. It's just an invention of your brain.
 
I think simulation as an analogy for the fall in Hinduism or Buddhism is a fine one (not a perfect one). The fall is our separation from God or non dual existence and everything that happens to us in this physical existence only represents or simulates the conditions of the fall. This is why many Hindu teachers state that any problems you have with anyone are really only a representation of the issues and blockages you have with God, that they are not real but only those wounds represented in physical form.
 
It is compleyely simulated in your brain. Your brain is yaking info and creating yoir reality. It's just an invention of your brain.


Are you saying that nothing is as we are experiencing it? Can you give an example of what you mean?
 
Interesting stuff. I know as I have been watching videos on philosophy over the last couple of weeks on the Khan University app they had a whole section on linguistics but I didn't see anything on semiotics. Intersting stuff.

It's awesome how the study of signs gets co-opted by certain disciplines more than others too

I never would have expected semiotics would be most massive in zoology antropology or musicology

ferdinand_de_saussure.jpg


Also mustaches
 
We are very ignorant to the state of reality and our hubris limits the development of understanding...

In thought, we are limited by meager planet brains. But we are infatuated with improvement and renaissance. And thus, fumble forward, flooding our ubiquitous networks with contemporary knowledge. It is only a matter of time before our true nature of existence is undeniably understood.
 
In thought, we are limited by meager planet brains. But we are infatuated with improvement and renaissance. And thus, fumble forward, flooding our ubiquitous networks with contemporary knowledge. It is only a matter of time before our true nature of existence is undeniably understood.


Any guesses as to what that true nature of existence might be? Serious question.
 
How much ketamine did you sniff?
 
People with jobs leaving just when the discussion is getting good. :)

@M3t4tr0n hey man if your name is green does that mean your a mod?
 
Are you saying that nothing is as we are experiencing it? Can you give an example of what you mean?
I'm not sure how it "really" is. Depends on what is perceiving it. I do know your universe exists 100% in your brain. Everything about it is constructed within your head.
 
I'm not sure how it "really" is. Depends on what is perceiving it. I do know your universe exists 100% in your brain. Everything about it is constructed within your head.


I dont understand this concept. Do you mean that if I am holding a hammer it isn't really what I think it is? or do you mean it in a more radical sense as in I and hammer are not really there?
 
There's a great debate in text interpretation where some scholars insist krishna's teachings (like christ's teachings) reflect the sublime incorporeal of what "waits for our understanding in death" while others say that's entirely wrong, that these teachings are meant to be read as what the mortal realm really is right now as we live in it despite how it makes us feel, and that if enlightenment is attainable or part-experienced on earth, that the "life is an illusion" stuff isn't meant to be a lofty larger plane, but in the smallest plane of existence we see day to day

I call bullshit though, because ontological models at least waited until existence winked out for thinkers before claiming there would be a big reveal

If according to many eastern religion models we are living in the "sublime" that just hasn't been recognized i can sympathize, but too many organisms are snuffed out before given that chance to understand, and so the "striving" for understanding gets absolutely buggered by real pain and suffering visited upon its inhabitants, so steeply so that it unmakes people and things with vast irregularity which means your 'existence striving to prove its sublimity through reveals and mindset discipline' gets absolutely demolished by unavoidable externals

Try fitting brain cancer in children into your ontological, "human alongside nature" or "mindset" theology, because as Stephen Frye expertly puts it you can't. Or the existence of parasites that target un-born or infant organisms. Eye burrowing ants. That sort of striving model that never gets to grow up
I think I get what you're saying, but wouldn't reincarnation have a play in regards to living in the sublime now and just needing to realize it versus getting the big reveal after death? This way you have a reason for beings to not have a chance if realization before death, they can try in the next go around.
 
Last edited:
In technical terminology, he's a loon.
 
Back
Top