Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

The concepts in the Hollywood film The Matrix arguably mirrors many modern scientific concepts in quantum physics and also far older mystical ideas like the illusory world of Maya mentioned in The Bhagavad Gita.

So are we all living in the Matrix?

There's one central thing that binds together different truth seeking arms such as science, religion, philosophy and spirituality, and it's this: The world is not real.

This is demonstrated in most religions, be it the maya of Buddhism or the miracles of Christ. Science now agrees that there is only energy, that different dimensions exist, that we know nothing of the vast amount of Dark Energy that makes up 70% of our known universe, and that it's very likely we're living in a holographic world.
At the centre of philosophy is that question: does the world exist if we're not here to experience it? How can we rely on our five senses and a chain reaction of brain interpretations that anything is real?
I'm sure most people are familiar with such ideas, and yet we still fail to see the similarities between these branches of human truth seeking.

There are also plenty of theories out there that we are indeed living in a type of Matrix, and yet so many would just laugh at the idea, thinking that it's ridiculous that people would base their beliefs on a movie. But they're not. They're basing it on that central theme of the above mentioned, that for thousands of years, humans have asked themselves: what's real? Matrix believers simply see the movie based on the belief, not the other way around.
As people group in their appropriate isms for them, all with much the same beliefs, we forget to stop and ask simple questions, and instead get carried away in dogmatic thinking.

So, here's my question for anyone who thinks the idea that the world isn't real (and therefore there's another reality) is absurd:

If human beings became extinct, and there were only all the other creatures of the animal kingdom still on the planet, would the world still look the same?

Imagine how a horse sees the world, with eyes on either side of its head (the position of which is common to most animals, human beings being one of the exceptions of front seeing, close together eyes).

Imagine being able to see the left and the right but not what's directly in front of you.

Imagine being an owl with a 360 degree view of the world, seen from different heights and positions.

Imagine being an insect. There is no up or down. Things look different at different speeds.

Imagine having a fish eye lens, where there are no straight lines to be seen, and everything is spherised.

Imagine you see the world in black and white, as most creatures do. (Obviously, we know colour doesn't exist outside of our eyes.)

Imagine the world is upside down- because it actually is. We see it that way with our eyes (just like a camera lens), but we know the brain turns the image the 'right way up'.

It should be apparent that what I'm getting at is that every creature sees, senses and experiences the world differently. If there were no human beings to experience the way the world looks to us, surely it's logical to then conclude that the world only exists in relevance to the one seeing it (or it has an unknown 'state of being' that no creature can see).

If those insects, birds, fish, animals... gazelles, elephants, spiders... were intelligent enough to start measuring things, defining things, coming up with their own science and belief structures, all of it would only be relevant to them. Ergo, the world we think we know does not exist.

So- who disagrees? :)

Great post, Harry.
If the Matrix does indeed exist and we are all living in some kind of virtual simulated environment, then the next question is who or what built the matrix?

Cheers James.

Who? indeed. That's where all those ancient myths and tales that share the same essential ingredients come into play. But we haven't yet touched upon ancient secrets too much in this group yet!

Harry is offering the red pill. Perhaps the Matrix is just our latest attempt to rationalise consciousness. It is a popular idea, almost part of a modern mythology. but if it were true, could the "real" world above be another matrix? Is it matrices all the way up?

A dream within a dream within a dream?

Damian wrote: "Harry is offering the red pill. Perhaps the Matrix is just our latest attempt to rationalise consciousness. It is a popular idea, almost part of a modern mythology. but if it were true, could the "..."

Yep, maybe. But one step at a time...

Video with latest research that indicates making simulated worlds/universes is possible: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/7779...

Like a Splinter in Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind the Matrix Trilogy is on this subject and one of my favorite books.

the simulation theory is a popular one. From evolutionary standpoint, any living cell is concerned about multiplying...there are so many different species (I'll name examples if anyone wishes) whose sole existence is offering their own lives in order for their DNA to continue on another generation. Whether we admit it or not, we want our DNA to live on. In virtual reality, would we not be more concerned about capital gain, rather than families?

So let's say we are in a computer simulation, would this alter anything about evolution I wonder? Or would it all be a part of evolution?

This quote blew my mind:

“Is there any way to be sure that your whole life has not been a dream? I don't think that there is. Typically we call some experiences "dreams" and others "reality" by contrasting them. Experiences that we call "real" are consistent and predictable. For example, people don't just get up and fly away in "real life" while they sometimes do in dreams. And it is not unusual for the experiences we have in dreams to jump around from one time and place to another, while those events we call "real" do not. But if your whole life has been a dream, then there is nothing to contrast these experiences with. In this case, the "dreams" that you recall each night are just dreams within the dream. And that contrast still holds. Even if your whole life has been a dream you could distinguish your nightly dreams from your "waking experiences" much of the time. But how do you know that you are not in Neo's predicament- that even your waking experiences are simply more dreams- just more predictable ones? Morpheus's suggestion seems correct. If you have never awakened from the dream to see what "real life" is actually like, you would have absolutely no way to discern that you are dreaming.”
― Matt Lawrence, Like a Splinter in Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind the Matrix Trilogy

if this truly is the way it is, it would be the same predicament as religions faces with the question what was before God...how do you know that you have awoken from the dream then? would you have any understanding of when you have finally reached consciousness in the real world? if in the simulated world you can experience emotions, gain intelligence and it can actually kill you, then what makes it not just as real?

Dreams often seem like another coherent reality. I'm not sure I believe they are because I often see how imagery is a reflection of waking life experiences. That said, in the hazy in-between time, dreams can seem more real than reality. I can think of more than one occasion where I was late to work because I woke up just enough to turn off the alarm clock. It wasn't because I wanted to sleep more, it was because I thought something important was happening in the dream world.

The idea of this world being an illusion is not quite universal but it's not uncommon. In the west, the Gnostics, Neoplatonists, Hermetists, and Qabbalists all had similar views of how this world is a pale reflection of the real reality aka the mind of God. I don't know if there was any cross pollination with Buddhism or Hinduism but there certainly could have been.

Interesting comments on the matrix, guys.

When I first saw the movie The Matrix in 1999 I just strongly felt the basic concept of a matrix is real on some level... And everything I’ve thought about or read about since then has lead me to the same conclusion… Plus people have been theorizing this very idea dating back to ancient times…It’s even in our nursery rhymes: “Row, row, row your boat. Gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily. LIFE IS BUT A DREAM.”

There is a phenomenon I wanted to bring up that I suspect may relate to the matrix (if it exists) and that is how our beliefs seem to form our own individual matrix…

I have held certain (spiritual) beliefs in my life that I felt were absolutely true and the world seemed to confirm this everywhere I looked with “signs”. But then when I altered my beliefs I no longer saw any of the same validation signs anymore.

Is this the same with other beliefs like astrology, numerology and things like this? And religious beliefs too – for example, people believe the “end times” are now upon us (as they’ve been saying for centuries!) and they see signs everywhere to confirm the coming Apocalypse.

I’m not picking on any one group or sector of society here guys. I suspect it may relate to almost every belief we take on board without absolute proof. Everything from political viewpoints, racial theories and all religious/spiritual beliefs and even non-religious beliefs like atheism and existentialism.

It seems to me that when beliefs lock in the brain as so-called undisputed facts, you’ll see “proof” to validate those beliefs everywhere. Maybe this is the way the matrix has been set up?? The outer world reflects our inner world and therefore beliefs are manifested in our own personal matrix...

I dunno…I have no answers…Just asking the questions here hoping the rest of you are more enlightened and can shine some light my way.

Confirmation bias is the term psychologists use. We tend to receive things more readily that confirm our beliefs. It's a problem for all sciences, and especially the esoteric sciences.

In the Illuminatus Trilogy (if you haven't read that, you really should), there's this idea of The Law of Fives - that everything is somehow related to the number five. The unstated corollary is that it is dependent on the ingenuity of the perceiver. It's similar to William S. Burroughs' discovery of the 23 enigma which I think is mentioned int Illuminatus. If not, I'm sure Wilson discusses it in the Cosmic Trigger.

I meant perceive, not receive in the first paragraph..

That could be an autocorrect issue that I missed.

Read the Illuminatus Trilogy, but a long time ago.
So you're implying the Law of Fives and the 23 Enigma might only be real to those who have taken on that belief who at least are open to believing?
And yeah, confirmation bias makes sense.
Seems like everyone is biased on some level.

In the world of academia, especially science, it seems there is a lot of confirmation bias going on as well.

it is, unfortunately, a human flaw...in my opinion, we seek answers to fit our ideas. When they don't, we either accept the discrepancy or find a way to fit it into our ideas. As I see this as a human flaw, it does not matter whether it is a belief system or science. As pertaining to the idea of a matrix, it's a difficult theory to prove or disprove...to me it means needing a belief system to cling to, because believing this life is all there is, is a hard pill to swallow.

Reality is in the eye of the beholder. :)

To some extent, we all have our own realities. We've been shaped by different life experiences which cause us to fit facts into completely different frameworks. I occasionally have to remind myself of that when someone from a similar background espouses radically different political beliefs from mine. (High school friends on Facebook)

As far as the original question goes, are we living in a simulation? It's not out of the question. Descartes is probably the inspiration for the idea but Plato's idea of being chained to the wall of a cave and only seeing shadows was his inspiration.

Another fun movie that's not exactly like the Matrix but explores similar issues is The Thirteenth Floor. It has a great cast and it's an interesting story.

Lisa wrote: "to me it means needing a belief system to cling to, because believing this life is all there is, is a hard pill to swallow..."

If we can agree that belief systems are THEORIES we accept as FACTS in our minds without ABSOLUTE PROOF, then I would argue believing "life is all there is" is just as much of a belief system as anything else - as obviously nobody has proved there is NOT an afterlife. At the end of the day, atheism can and should be included with other belief systems such as religious/spiritual beliefs.

Am not commenting on the validity of atheism or implying it's necessarily an erroneous theory, but it strikes me it's a belief system that demands all the usual "leaps of faith" of believers. After all, a belief in nothing (without proof there is nothing beyond the physical world) is still only a theory...

Therefore, the exact same question asked of all others who hold strong beliefs in their minds should also be asked of atheists: "How do you know you haven't accepted an erroneous belief and your mind is not searching everywhere for evidence to support that belief system?"

Jim wrote: "To some extent, we all have our own realities..."

Every person is living in their own matrix, you think?

OK...before I agree to atheism being a belief system, let me pull it apart a little bit. Let's even take the term "Belief System" out for just a little bit. I would like to argue that religions are not theories, but merely notions. I've read the scriptures and scriptural study guides as well as books about religions. My interpretation has been that religion has been the source of manipulation for political gain/gain of power and money. I think that many of the stories originally served as moral teachings. Atheism, on the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, is rejecting these teachings as reality and considering them mainly as ideas to help control people and for people to find solace. Believing that "life is all there is" would not be considered a belief system, since it isn't about "knowing" or putting your faith into it, but rather merely rejecting the existing theories out there about an afterlife on the basis that there are no theories of it with a confirmed hypothesis (as far as I know). Atheism, as nihilism, does not have a core belief. Every religion has a core belief. There is no book for atheists or nihilists to follow to teach them how to be atheists or nihilists...atheist literally means "without the belief in god" and nihilism means not having any belief at all. Often atheism and science go hand in hand, but it is up to each individual to define it for themselves. The term Belief System is quite a broad term and can be manipulated to cover any opinion about life a person may have. Yes, I will not reject the opinion of atheism being a belief system, but as far as for instance there being no proof of afterlife, does not mean atheists reject it, it only means that until there is proof it exists, there is no reason to believe it exists. Just because old scriptures talk of it and the stories of it continued throughout the centuries, is not a ground for believing it is true.

The belief there is nothing, certainly is only a theory, but the good thing about theories is that when not tied to a BELIEF SYSTEM, they are subject to change when the research proves otherwise (I guess one could argue that religions often adjust their beliefs to suit political correctness).

James wrote: "How do you know you haven't accepted an erroneous belief and your mind is not searching everywhere for evidence to support that belief system?"
What if your mind isn't searching for such answers? What if the search for evidence of "meaning of life" is of no value to a person and instead, the value is in learning about the things we already know of and how to manipulate them in order to improve the world around us...is that a belief system?

Back to the main topic, if this truly was a simulated world, would not that mean that after this life, there is nothing? Would we not cease to exist, since whoever would be controlling us is a different entity separate from us?

Hopefully this makes sense...sitting at work...hard to have a comprehensive thought :)

Still think Lisa atheism is just as much a belief system as religious theories.
However, agnosticism would not be a belief system in my mind as agnostics refuse to believe anything until they have proof and equally importantly they also remain completely open to both possibilities (afterlife or no afterlife). As soon as you shut the door on one possibility without proof - as atheists do in firmly saying there is no afterlife or believers do in rejecting the atheist theory - you have very rigid beliefs.going on.

hmmm...I think perhaps our understanding of atheism differs a little bit. That's OK :)...I could consider myself atheist and do not believe there is an afterlife, but at the same time, I don't have enough knowledge or understanding of the matter of eternity, to rule it out completely. I'm not into labels such as christians or atheists...I know many religious people who are religious for different reasons, or atheists who's opinions of life varies. I do not believe in shutting the door on possibilities. Even a 99% certainty deserves a crack in the door :)
I also know of agnostics who are keen on the matrix idea.

Lisa wrote: "hmmm...I think perhaps our understanding of atheism differs a little bit. That's OK :)...I could consider myself atheist and do not believe there is an afterlife, but at the same time, I don't have..."

Yes, that all makes sense and also to be clear I am bringing up things I've noticed in myself re taking on beliefs without evidence to support them. Also, none of this was mentioned to offend believers or atheists...Rather, it was more just throwing around the idea that the matrix concept of a simulated world could potentially explain why our own realities seem to reflect our current beliefs...And that once you change your beliefs, the world will present new "evidence" to confirm that new belief system...

I agree with what you're implying about such belief definitions and that people don't always fit into neat categories or labels society divides us into...For example, there are many religious people who are actually agnostics at heart and practice their religion more for cultural reasons. Likewise, I've met many who call themselves atheists (which by definition means a belief there is no God or afterlife) who are actually quite open-minded to the possibility of an afterlife and would therefore be better off calling themselves agnostics if they wish to use definitions...Atheism is also getting a bit confused in the media of late as some individuals who openly reject the concept of the Christian God or other religions versions of God but are very spiritual in a non-religious way are being called atheists by journalists.

Thus, I essentially agree with you that such labels do limit us in these sorts of discussions.

Latest comments here may be better suited to our latest poll thread (Do you believe in God?) which is attracting a lot of comment.

Lisa/James, I think my understanding of atheism may differ to yours and the understanding of one or two others, and that's reflected in this thread. I wonder if the meaning of atheism has been watered down over the years? I note the nodern dictionary interpretation of an atheist is "someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods" yet the word (apparently) can be traced back to the teachings of Plato and Aristotle who were known for their philosophical discussions on the existence of God. I'd imagine the god they referred to was the Christian God.

Certainly in the West, when someone refers to atheism, it's fair to say most people think in terms of non-belief in the Christian God. Or am I behind the times?

Lance wrote: "Latest comments here may be better suited to our latest poll thread (Do you believe in God?) which is attracting a lot of comment.

Lisa/James, I think my understanding of atheism may differ to you..."

Given that Plato and Aristotle both lived centuries before Christianity (i.e. BC), that'd be a no.

Atheism to my knowledge is a rejection in all and any forms of God or an afterlife. It just gets confused a bit in the West, especially in the US perhaps, as the dominant belief in God is a Christian one.

Came across this news article in the science magazine DISCOVER on the subject of whether the matrix is real: http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/...


Do We Live in the Matrix?

Tests could reveal whether we are part of a giant computer simulation — but the real question is if we want to know...

By Zeeya Merali|Friday, November 15, 2013




In the 1999 sci-fi film classic The Matrix, the protagonist, Neo, is stunned to see people defying the laws of physics, running up walls and vanishing suddenly. These superhuman violations of the rules of the universe are possible because, unbeknownst to him, Neo’s consciousness is embedded in the Matrix, a virtual-reality simulation created by sentient machines.

The action really begins when Neo is given a fateful choice: Take the blue pill and return to his oblivious, virtual existence, or take the red pill to learn the truth about the Matrix and find out “how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

Physicists can now offer us the same choice, the ability to test whether we live in our own virtual Matrix, by studying radiation from space. As fanciful as it sounds, some philosophers have long argued that we’re actually more likely to be artificial intelligences trapped in a fake universe than we are organic minds in the “real” one.

But if that were true, the very laws of physics that allow us to devise such reality-checking technology may have little to do with the fundamental rules that govern the meta-universe inhabited by our simulators. To us, these programmers would be gods, able to twist reality on a whim.

So should we say yes to the offer to take the red pill and learn the truth — or are the implications too disturbing?

Worlds in Our Grasp

The first serious attempt to find the truth about our universe came in 2001, when an effort to calculate the resources needed for a universe-size simulation made the prospect seem impossible.

Seth Lloyd, a quantum-mechanical engineer at MIT, estimated the number of “computer operations” our universe has performed since the Big Bang — basically, every event that has ever happened. To repeat them, and generate a perfect facsimile of reality down to the last atom, would take more energy than the universe has.

“The computer would have to be bigger than the universe, and time would tick more slowly in the program than in reality,” says Lloyd. “So why even bother building it?”

But others soon realized that making an imperfect copy of the universe that’s just good enough to fool its inhabitants would take far less computational power. In such a makeshift cosmos, the fine details of the microscopic world and the farthest stars might only be filled in by the programmers on the rare occasions that people study them with scientific equipment. As soon as no one was looking, they’d simply vanish.

In theory, we’d never detect these disappearing features, however, because each time the simulators noticed we were observing them again, they’d sketch them back in.

That realization makes creating virtual universes eerily possible, even for us. Today’s supercomputers already crudely model the early universe, simulating how infant galaxies grew and changed. Given the rapid technological advances we’ve witnessed over past decades — your cell phone has more processing power than NASA’s computers had during the moon landings — it’s not a huge leap to imagine that such simulations will eventually encompass intelligent life.

“We may be able to fit humans into our simulation boxes within a century,” says Silas Beane, a nuclear physicist at the University of Washington in Seattle. Beane develops simulations that re-create how elementary protons and neutrons joined together to form ever larger atoms in our young universe.

Legislation and social mores could soon be all that keeps us from creating a universe of artificial, but still feeling, humans — but our tech-savvy descendants may find the power to play God too tempting to resist.

They could create a plethora of pet universes, vastly outnumbering the real cosmos. This thought led philosopher Nick Bostrom at the University of Oxford to conclude in 2003 that it makes more sense to bet that we’re delusional silicon-based artificial intelligences in one of these many forgeries, rather than carbon-based organisms in the genuine universe. Since there seemed no way to tell the difference between the two possibilities, however, bookmakers did not have to lose sleep working out the precise odds.

Learning the Truth

That changed in 2007 when John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University, suggested that an imperfect simulation of reality would contain detectable glitches. Just like your computer, the universe’s operating system would need updates to keep working.

As the simulation degrades, Barrow suggested, we might see aspects of nature that are supposed to be static — such as the speed of light or the fine-structure constant that describes the strength of the electromagnetic force — inexplicably drift from their “constant” values.

Last year, Beane and colleagues suggested a more concrete test of the simulation hypothesis. Most physicists assume that space is smooth and extends out infinitely. But physicists modeling the early universe cannot easily re-create a perfectly smooth background to house their atoms, stars and galaxies. Instead, they build up their simulated space from a lattice, or grid, just as television images are made up from multiple pixels.

The team calculated that the motion of particles within their simulation, and thus their energy, is related to the distance between the points of the lattice: the smaller the grid size, the higher the energy particles can have. That means that if our universe is a simulation, we’ll observe a maximum energy amount for the fastest particles. And as it happens, astronomers have noticed that cosmic rays, high-speed particles that originate in far-flung galaxies, always arrive at Earth with a specific maximum energy of about 1020 electron volts.

The simulation’s lattice has another observable effect that astronomers could pick up. If space is continuous, then there is no underlying grid that guides the direction of cosmic rays — they should come in from every direction equally. If we live in a simulation based on a lattice, however, the team has calculated that we wouldn’t see this even distribution. If physicists do see an uneven distribution, it would be a tough result to explain if the cosmos were real.

Astronomers need much more cosmic ray data to answer this one way or another. For Beane, either outcome would be fine. “Learning we live in a simulation would make no more difference to my life than believing that the universe was seeded at the Big Bang,” he says. But that’s because Beane imagines the simulators as driven purely to understand the cosmos, with no desire to interfere with their simulations.

Unfortunately, our almighty simulators may instead have programmed us into a universe-size reality show — and are capable of manipulating the rules of the game, purely for their entertainment. In that case, maybe our best strategy is to lead lives that amuse our audience, in the hope that our simulator-gods will resurrect us in the afterlife of next-generation simulations.

The weird consequences would not end there. Our simulators may be simulations themselves — just one rabbit hole within a linked series, each with different fundamental physical laws. “If we’re indeed a simulation, then that would be a logical possibility, that what we’re measuring aren’t really the laws of nature, they’re some sort of attempt at some sort of artificial law that the simulators have come up with. That’s a depressing thought!” says Beane.

This cosmic ray test may help reveal whether we are just lines of code in an artificial Matrix, where the established rules of physics may be bent, or even broken. But if learning that truth means accepting that you may never know for sure what’s real — including yourself — would you want to know?

There is no turning back, Neo: Do you take the blue pill, or the red pill?

The Matrix Revealed

Tantalizingly, just weeks before The Matrix came out in 1999, astronomers analyzing the light from distant galaxies published hints that the universe’s “constants” might not be so constant. Specifically, they found that the value of the fine-structure constant — which determines how the galaxies’ light should appear — is one thousandth of a percent bigger today than it was 10 billion years ago.

Glitches caused by our simulation being patched up could also be at the root of truly bizarre results that defy the normal rules of physics. One such possible effect appeared in 2011, when physicists working on the OPERA experiment in Europe made headlines as they claimed to have measured subatomic particles called neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, considered the universal speed limit.

Unfortunately, neither case proved a slam-dunk for a virtual universe. Independent tests could not back up the fine-structure constant data, and the speedy neutrinos turned out to be due to a faulty experimental setup. But there is a more fantastical explanation: These inconstant-constants may have instead been simulation glitches, glimpsed just before our programmers fixed them.

Never occurred to me to take any of this offensively :)

Sounds like everybody has their interpretation of atheism, which is fine. I just remember learning in school (probably philosophy class) that an "a" in the beginning of a word means without. So to me, it really has nothing to do with anything else but the fact that I lead me life without theism affecting my choices. Atheism doesn't affect my choices either, because to me that word doesn't make sense in that way. It is just a term that says theism is not a part of my life. Therefore, my own morals and ethical values help shape the life I lead. Anyways, all this doesn't really matter since it has so many definitions (apparently :)).

As for the article, I had lots of thoughts while reading it, but as usual, most had escaped me by the time I finished reading it. The problem I have with the Matrix theory, which I believe the article mentioned, is the need for a god in such a universe.
I feel like I'm touching a subject here that I really know nothing about, which is the make up of the Universe.
A person may say that it is crazy to think that the universe could have started by atoms bouncing around, forming molecules and over billions of years planets and who knows what kind of lives where formed. We do know about the lives that formed on this planet. None of this had any kind of design or structured plan, but since atoms (and whatever else) are directed by their properties, they were able to create larger structures... evolution. As crazy as this may sounds, it sure makes a lot more sense than a super-being, whether behind a computer or on the planet Kolob is controlling every aspect of our lives.

Let's take this back to the Matrix... one will have to ask the question of free will... Free will can really be questioned regardless of belief system, but in the Matrix, free will doesn't seem to be a part of the "game"... I'm reminded of the game SIMS. My husband used to play it (10 yrs ago), and he had created us and a house. One day I was blow drying my hair and electrocuted myself and died. He put the ashes in the living room where he'd sit and cry. In order to earn "happy" points, women would come over, bring him food and he'd make out with some of them.
If this life is really just a simulation, are we just waiting for the "player" to get tired of the game and stop playing? What happens then? He'll send a meteor our way and destroy the planet? Pandemics wipe out the population? Warfare?

Micky wrote: "James wrote: "A dream within a dream within a dream?"

Hello it is Micky again. I have some ideas on the Matrix it may correlate with the evolution of transhumanism. I found these two pretty good v..."

Very interesting, Micky.
It certainly does seem like the elite are heavily invested in transhumanism and are subtly but intensely pushing that agenda (rightly or wrongly)....Especially the atheist faction of the elite which according to what I've researched is a big chunk of the global elite.

I haven't had a chance to read enough about transhumanism yet to wrap my head around it all yet.

Amazing thoughts Micky...some of which I sense could be true.

James, try The Transhumanist Wager by Zoltan Istvan

Lisa wrote: "James, try The Transhumanist Wager by Zoltan Istvan"

Lisa - We've both read that one. I reviewed it...5 Stars! An excellent read.

Some people (including several I've corresponded with in this group) claim to have seen the matrix ie for a brief moment they saw (or believe they saw depending on your viewpoint) the computer program behind our reality and it apparently looks just like in the movie with series of number codes running vertically.

Besides members in this group, many others have spoken of seeing the same thing including accounts before the movie was released

What do others think of this?

the mind is a tricky thing.

Yes it is and at times it can be deceiving
On the other hand, reality is a tricky thing and can be deceiving

I guess that's why skeptical mind makes the most logical sense ;) ...when I hear about ppl seeing things that don't make sense to me...and they cannot prove, I have a hard accepting it...I believe we can believe in something strongly enough that our mind is somehow able to simulate that belief as a confirmation to ourselves that we are right.

Yep agree Lisa re beliefs forming or supposedly manifesting before believers due to their beliefs rather than actual reality as I think I stated at the beginning of this discussion thread.
However, I guess where things get much trickier is when you have a percentage of such sightings (whether space craft or mystical quantum "otherworldly" type things) coming from formerly devout atheists or hardcore skeptics. When you look at all the reports and accounts on such sightings, probably about 10-20% fit into that category...

...and because those 10-20% (just my ballpark estimate but it'd be roughly in that vicinity give or take) obviously held no beliefs to influence their minds and in some cases their "beliefs" were complete disbelief.
So that's much harder to explain away obviously.
Things get interesting the deeper you dig, I find ;)

James: Yes it is and at times it can be deceiving
On the other hand, reality is a tricky thing and can be deceiving

Yes! A comment in the spirit of RAW.

RAW?

Robert Anton Wilson

Jim wrote: "Robert Anton Wilson"

RAW rocks!

James wrote: "Jim wrote: "Robert Anton Wilson"

RAW rocks!"

Is this what Katy Perry was singing about when she said "You're gonna see me Raw"? Or was she saying roar? :)

For anyone who has come to the conclusion that "the matrix" is real, either by scientific or spiritual means, and have therefore also discovered that they themselves don't exist, and could well be crapping their pants at such a notion, in times of insanity emergencies, Harry Whitewolf recommends this video as a cure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfvgv...

Laughter is always the best medicine. If not the whole truth.

One thing is sure. The Matrix was a great concept. It represented a theme everyone has thought but never knew how to express it: what's behind/under/beyond the space bed?

James Morcan wrote: "Lisa wrote: "to me it means needing a belief system to cling to, because believing this life is all there is, is a hard pill to swallow..."

If we can agree that belief systems are THEORIES we acce..."

Agreed James. Atheism is a belief system. There is no proof that there is not a God.
I liked what you said there at the end, "How do you know you haven't accepted an erroneous belief and your mind is not searching everywhere for evidence to support that belief system?"

Fay wrote: "There is no proof that there is not a God."

Depends. None can prove this issue by producing a power-point presentation with a vase and burner in a lab. Such would also be its own dis-proof by virtue of limiting God to a component of its own effect: what size vase?

Come, let us reason together:

1. Its the same logic of a red Merc appearing in one's bedroom that wasn't there before. Prove there was no car maker?

2. A universe appears that wasn't there before. Prove there is no universe maker?

The God-did-it belief gained fame with Genesis' Creationism, and it is logical by its own premise; it says once the universe never existed. Here, I cannot accept the logic of a conclusion there was no universe maker.

Genesis' logic is uncomfortable because it remains the only viable counter to this issue today and based on reasoning instead of belief & faith. It is why science has produced un-provable, un-scientific theories and slight of hand math to promote the universe as infinite. Genesis wins when it is based on a finite premise: there are more logical indicators the uni is finite than not so.

Joseph wrote: "Fay wrote: "There is no proof that there is not a God."

Depends. None can prove this issue by producing a power-point presentation with a vase and burner in a lab. Such would also be its own dis-p..."

Regarding the red Merc - I'd imagine you'd just trace the car's engine number back to the Merc factory and you'd soon find your proof.

Regarding the new universe that wasn't there before - um...that's a tougher one. Ideas anyone?