Why We’re NOT Living in a Simulation

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

LINKS AND CORRECTIONS If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at [e-mail]. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

[@stephenbrennan4508]

Simulation theory is silly 😜 simulation reality and illusion are synonymous for any sentient being within them

[@stephenbrennan4508]

Haha I like the saying have you ever been skeptical about your skepticism if no then your not truly a skeptic

[@Emire.das1]

Hey! Do you have an instagram account? l'd like to follow you also from there.

[@jeusmarcomascarina4102]

For me illusion is not entirely but the limitation of human or a living with it's skills. The more you are weak the more you see illusion. Because simulation are just meant for weaks.

[@augustsmith9553]

I really wanted to watch this But you’re British So annoying

[@Yuki-od6cd]

"I trust table, more than I trust you" Best response 👏

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

It is a funny reply, but there is definitely something in it

[@mbmurphy777]

It’s actually a terrible response because that’s exactly what someone in the matrix would say. It’s funny and clever, but ultimately meaningless.

[@aaronz1326]

It's a bad argument. The absence of evidence for a table is self verifiable. No external parties, however convincing, required.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Well, I suppose logically speaking, both arguments essentially assume the falsity of what the other is attempting to show. Then the question is about the direction in which one can construct their epistemology. It is one reason why I prefer the pragmatic version where it says "we are stuck with one belief, and it implies the other belief". I think it is more plausible than the one Moore gives. It does not get us sidetracked into debates around epistemological structures, and emphasises the "no true disagreement without practical consequences" portion of Charles Peirce's philosophy, which is the part I find most interesting. In its construction by Moore it is important to remember that the two points comparing relative justification are "my hands exist" and "a sceptical scenario is possible" rather than "my hands exist" and "I am in a sceptical scenario". That is, he thinks the evidence for hands existing is stronger than the evidence that a sceptical scenario is possible, rather than granting the possibility (like via indistinguishability, as you do here) and then arguing against it. It is definitely worth a read in its original form, as it relies on subtle distinctions that it is easy to unintentionally caricature.

[@mbmurphy777]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I will definitely take a look at the original argument. I like pragmatic arguments myself also. Here I was specifically referring to the table quip that some seem to find convincing. The argument is reminiscent of the guy that claimed to refute Berkley by kicking a rock. Rewatching your video I noticed that you use the fact that no one treats their loved ones as if they are computer programs as evidence against the fact that we are in a simulation. That argument also extends to materialism/determinism. In a deterministic universe, people essentially are nothing different than computer programs run on hardware of molecules in motion and software as the laws of physics. But no one treats their loved ones like that either.

[@electricanomaly]

Best lesson my father taught me; question everything. All of our perceptions can be skewed by our biases. Let reality move you and accept it as it is, without adhering to false ideals.

[@smartsmartie7142]

How are you supposed to deny something that you thought was right your entire life? Everyone who grew up has unconsciously accepted and integrated the worldview their surrounding has, they live in that worldview. How do they step out when doubting itself is seen as the "work of evil"

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@smartsmartie7142 The best way is to accept, that no worldview is completely good or completely bad. It helps to try to understand the opposing views (and people) without judgment. You do not doubt yourself, you just open up to others.

[@waterfallfaerie]

I think this a nice ideal to have but this can actually be dangerous since "reality" and "false ideals" means something different for pretty much every individual and our "realities" are simply not correlated with truth. If anything, fiction and our narrow imagination of what the world is are crucial for being able to live the kind of life that a human does with our degree of self-awareness. If we actually fully considered every aspect of reality, we would all go insane and either choose not to live or to drown ourselves in drugs and alcohol-because the reality is that in order to live as a human you have to take the lives of uncountable numbers of other organisms and playfully ignore and create stories of will to hide the fact that you are being driven by your instincts and not by "reality". Our senses are not reality, they are interpretations of stimuli tuned to what is relevant to our survival; our worldviews are not reality, they are a small number of possible perspectives generated by our experiences and inner worlds and limited by hard-wired mental capacities; our knowledge is not reality, it is just attempts to grasp at it-yet, many humans consider their senses, worldview, and/or knowledge to be unquestionable and the furthest thing from a false ideal. Flat earthers, religious zealots, and criminal masterminds also let what they perceive, view, and know to be "reality" move them and we know what happens as a result of that. Considering this, I think it's a bit naive to suggest that reality should simply be followed or that it is something that is trustworthy enough to be accepted "as it is"-what we think is reality is often not even a fraction of what is occurring at scales that we don't have natural or even artificial access to. As most people see it, reality is their experience and understanding, which is often blanketed with layers of evolutionarily selected human-centric and survival-oriented thinking and feeling-this is unquestionably useful for human survival and thriving, but it's not anything to do with truth.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@waterfallfaerie You can never know what "truth" is, especially in a possible simulation. As I see it, the purpose of the simulation would be precisely this - to create a "stage" for every single human to experience exactly that, which helps them evolve. So their subjective experience and understanding is the only thing which matters (and for which they are aaccountable). And there is NO way for any single man to know what "truth" is - even in some hypothetical realy real world, not to speak about simulation.

[@electricanomaly]

@@waterfallfaerie Take a moment and re-analyze this comment you made. It is rife with subjective opinion and bias. Reality is the shared environment that we as conscious individuals find ourselves operating within. An individual's perception (subjective view) of the reality we share is NOT reality. That is PERCEPTION False ideals are PERCEPTIONS interpreted as REALITY. I simply disagree for these reasons. If you decide to operate out of your subjective perceptions, then you will not be able to discern fact and fiction.

[@traywor]

Earlier in my life I feared the sceptics arguments, but at some point I realized, being in a simulation, doesn't make my experience less real. I will still feel a very real feeling of the simulated hunger and then have a very real satisfaction of eating an illusion.

[@QuinnKallisti]

Ignorance is bliss, as cipher… would say.

[@Laszer271]

For me, the possibility of living in simulation was always hopeful as this proposes that there might be something out there, still for us to explore, even after death. Cheers!

Exactly. I'm stuck here for now either way, might as well make the best of it.

[@kuritheking]

I still feel the pang of missing the dead whether it’s imaginary or not

[@lionel4685]

@@Laszer271 how does simulation equal life after death ?

[@christianpetersen163]

"I trust the table more than I trust you." That response is so savage that the man now has the right to enter the other guy's residence and acquire any furniture he likes for himself.

[@aaronz1326]

It's a bad argument. The absence of evidence for a table is self verifiable. No external parties, however convincing, required.

[@paulsixtus4926]

No such thing as the table exist. There's only 'it ' from which we abstract and i-ma-gine.

[@Garblegox]

Yeah but are you sure?

[@paradise745]

Ooh he got you there

[@MrRayDeaz]

YES. you life in cozy environment could easily said we live in simulation meanwhile millions people born in wrong place, poor condition, poor economy, die of hungry or thristy like African kids, and Elon Musk and wealthy people says we live in Sim? lol. Then Schwab says we must possess nothing in this earth. Then you follow them 😂

[@mianriyaan2647]

​@MrRayDeaz "like African kids" really specific dude, but it is true, a lot of kids die in Africa, but such is true also for Asia, and Latin America, or literally anywhere else.

[@mianriyaan2647]

​@@MrRayDeazare you seriously using the death of children as humor?

[@xeriasual]

Someone is just playing with a poor people simulator. Destroyed. ​@@MrRayDeaz

[@حيدرحسين-ه2ر]

One of the few content makers on KZbin That actually presents something worthy of our time Thank you from all my heart ❤️

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you for watching! I really appreciate it

[@mortalexo103]

Yes! This is a channel I legitimately get excited about.

[@hartssquire9386]

Sometimes I'm focusing so much on the train of thought he's on that I lose track of whatever else I'm doing, that's how engaging content should be, not "let me zone out and kinda listen" Absolutely fantastic work I've learned so much about philosophy and even my own political biases watching your channel, examining the mind is so fascinating

[@nathancate582]

No detected 'like', 'um', or 'uh'; very informative content; no detected mistakes left in due to laziness. This, ladies and gents, is how you make youtube content. Props.

[@LostSoulSearching]

RIGHT???!!! His presentation is on point. Very professional, indeed.

[@thedarkknight8821]

Exactly. This is the kind of content which should blow up. I wish him and his channel the best 🤞🏻

[@nathancate582]

@Of_infinite_Faith in my country I am entitled to an opinion. Which is what I gave. 👍

[@BerserkerErik]

Putnam's argument really blew me away for a second there, for a while I was pretty convinced the simulation hypothesis seemed pretty logical, but who even knows the logic of our minds can even interpret/understand or comprehend this external world. Good video and some interesting takes indeed.

[@serversurfer6169]

@Flux_40 Do you mean, "I think therefore I am," and this level of consciousness would be unnecessary for a simulated being, making it unlikely that you are one? 🤔

[@kisbiflos]

"living in a simulation" has no bearing on the existence of things. Just because I know and have proof of my hand existing, it can still be a simulation.

[@8bitninja64]

My hands exist in my dreams as well and they can feel warmth and texture just like in my waking life. Also, if we are in a simulation we are more likely just A.I. agents as opposed to “a brain in a jar”.

[@8bitninja64]

@Flyweight.8 Same here. That’s probably because we wake up anytime there’s a situation that will cause pain but you can feel the warmth and the smoothness of skin in your dreams. At least I can.

[@8bitninja64]

@Flyweight.8 is there?

[@lupo3694]

@@8bitninja64 there is, your dreams can only produce sensations that you know. I have dreamt, on more than one occasion, that I have tattoos. In the dream I tried really hard to remember the sensation and pain from getting them but I simply couldn't. I couldn't do it because I have no tattoos in real life, so how would I know what it feels like?

[@lupo3694]

@esthete.101 yeah OK but say we do live in a simulation. If we can't even comprehend a world outside the simulation (which we couldn't), how on earth would we be able to comprehend a simutator and their underlying motives for keeping us in a simulation? So therefor we couldn't possibly comprehend a simulator, even if they existed, which renders your argument pretty much obsolete.

[@AJ-tr5ml]

"we cannot have knowledge of anything" "How do you know?"

[@Will-ke7cj]

Another banger video my guy. You deserve way more recognition

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! And to be fair, I've been blown away by the recognition I've been getting

[@love-dove-noora5438]

If we live in a simulation my first thought would be: “What sick bastard is controlling my life”

[@stargazer137]

real talk bruh

[@meantweetsandcheepgas946]

Plot twist: you wrote out your destiny before you were born.

[@paromita_ghosh]

I'd thats your first thought you are already screwed You don't believe in free will , do you?

[@superkamiguru4963]

Some sort of demiurge

[@ChristineFilak]

Call the tech companies . They have all the answers on whos controlling it. Money paid out actually by the american tax payer

[@Pathologines]

As an Albanian individual, regular watcher of your videos, I was caught off guard by your albanian reference. However I was genuinely pleased!!

[@undercoverblade6647]

No way! I thought i was the only Albanian watching his videos!Happy to see a fellow Albanian enjoys his content too!

[@Pathologines]

@@undercoverblade6647 hello my albanian mate! I hope you are doing well! I know , we are everywhere lol 😂

[@steveweast475]

Uploads a Matrix video after I just finished watching Matpat's Matrix theory. This cannot be a coincidence, we are living in a Matrix.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha!

[@begumhasina1052]

If it is the wifi needs a check

[@isopropyltoxicity]

No we aren't the algorithm recommends similar videos

[@steveweast475]

@@isopropyltoxicity nah, I got recommended the Matrix Game Theory video before this one got uploaded

[@seditt5146]

@@steveweast475 Its because underlaying reality and that which we perceive it to be are two wildly different things. There likely is a reason for these sorts of simultaneities that everyone experiences more and more the more open they become to them even outside of the current idea that we remember things that appear meaningful and seek them out. This video fails to disprove from point 1 as we have no proof of the hand and there are many issues with Phantom limbs where people believe they have limbs that do not exist. If you base your philosophy like this CC does on a foundation of mud it becomes quite easy to push anything over that is piled on top of it. We know for a fact reality is just not how we view it. Donald Hoffmans work is trying to quantify this sort of thing using math's and what not but the overall understanding is intuitive as can be once we realize anything not beneficial to our survival was discarded by evolution and that we only even experience a tiny fraction of the Electromagnetic, Acoustic, and mechanical environment around us. I would love to believe we are not in something similar to a simulation but its becoming increasingly harder to ignore as the odds of you and me being here at this point in time are so close to zero it becomes more likely your hand is a figment of your imagination. MUCH more likely!

[@troutfish8590]

As someone who loves to listen to a ton of philosophy content, you are one of the best channels out there.

[@ycyean8235]

"I trust table, more than I trust you" my dad to me

[@lupo3694]

made me laugh. thanks.

[@INTEG17]

Gave me relationship trauma.

[@Christophe_derBerge-op9zh]

Wah Wah 😩

[@MontgomeryMonsters]

You can never know the answer to any of these big questions, I’m with Camus, embrace your life and stop worrying about it.

[@mr.mountvillain362]

Robert E. Howard said it a hundred years ago. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.

[@triniview_official_7]

First let’s look at the word simulation. imitation of a situation or process What is imitation the action of using someone or something as a model. What could one mean when they say reality is a simulation? An echo perhaps? A hologram? A memory? The way our brains interpret sight sound smell and touch are merely an interpretation. Imitating an energy that we all clearly interact with 🤷🏽‍♀️

[@skeletonyup]

if anything we would start a simulation, this is reality to its pure form..

[@jamescurrie2246]

One mistake people make is that Decarte said, "I think , therefore I am". I recall reading the words "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." Thinking is fundamentally the act of doubt, therefore "I" don't know anything by thinking because doubt is not knowing. So, who is this guy "I am?" He seems to believe he knows things yet only exists because he doubts existence, yet he obviously does. No doubt at all for a knower.

[@tylerwarwick7975]

This was one of the first videos to pop up on my feed after my phone mysteriously reset itself at 4:11 in the morning so I'm going to watch because it feels like I angered the sentinels lol.

[@TheKingOfWaves]

Your videos keep getting better and better

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! That’s very kind!

[@for_fox_aches]

I discovered you only days ago and am blown away by your content.

[@crispyandspicy6813]

>I use my hands to survive, thus they are a prequisite to my existence >My existence is already proven by Cogito ergo sum >Therefore my hands exist Done. Next question

[@OpulentDestiny]

As soon as you said that you can:to hold two opposing beliefs in your head I got an Audible commercial for 1984😂.

[@gothafloxacin]

THE KING HAS RETURNED 🎉🎉🎉

[@brendanrobinson6860]

I think to do justice to this topic one should start with a short introduction into what is meany by a “simulation”. The mechanics of the simulation is not that relevant but it begs the question “who is the simulator” and are other versions run in parallel universes. Is it possible in fact to wake up out of the simulation or can you simply become aware of the fact that it is a simulation. And then, to what end?

[@brendanrobinson6860]

@Flyweight.8 yes, this is where it gets really interesting. the realisation that the simulated and simulator are in fact one undivided process.

[@the.littlest.toaster]

What if the simulation we live in is natural it occurs without a creator but just base on a loose set of rules. Like our universe doesn't benefit us living in it we are just a byproduct that naturally happens in this natural simulation

[@theblishknovk]

Even the simulator making the simulation could be in a simulation. The layers could be "infinite".

[@saranshukla]

I have actually been scared of this philosophy so many times, It was GREAT to watch your video essay on it, Thank you, Beautiful video ♥️

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you for watching!

[@mortalexo103]

New unsolicited advice! Yes please!

[@markobabic487]

The perfect simulation of reality for me IS reality for me.

[@Inaho452]

in my opinion there is not much point in fretting about wether the reality i experience is real or simulated. The life doesnt go away either way and it must be lived. There are consequences to my actions so i must act in a way according to that. Does it really matter if those consequences are actually true or just true in my mind?

[@alena-qu9vj]

It does not matter if the simulation calls something "true", but it matters WHAT are your actions and their consequences. In a game some actions lead to loss, other to win.

[@ForageGardener]

Decarte didn't say we live in a simulation he said our perception is unverifiable and known to be faulty and capable of being entirely arbitrary to so called "external" stimuli

[@rennor3498]

One argument which fascinated me about how the reality in which we live in may or may not be real is based on a assumption regarding change. This essentially follows a pre-socratic philosophical position developed, or more accurately ''discovered" by the ancient greek philosopher Heraclitus which argues that everything that is in the world which we live in is in a constant flux or process of becoming, therefore everything is an abstraction that nullifies the possibility of it truly being as it is. Take a moment to think of something which has existed as itself without undergoing a change, if an object, being or even concept has ever truly been itself without being further expanded upon or undergoing it own gradual transformation (acctualization) or degeneration (depending on circumstance). Heraclitus liked to sum up his view on reality in the following quote: ''Nothing truly is, everything is becoming.'' From here a possibility of concieving a nihile of what may be noticed around is opened with the notion that things may exist in a contradiction, as mentioned earlier through the methodology of being itself but also not being itself The earlier argument regarding the reliability of assuming that the existance of one's hands is an example. While its true that picking something up or interacting with anything through their use only validates their existance, it also raises the question of arguing are those hands really your same hands as ever? You are born with hands and you possess them as parts that make up your body through the duration of your life but the hands that you have at the specific moment when you decide to contemplate their existance, are they exactly the same hands when you were born? The fingers would have grown longer, the muscle would have increased, strength of the grip and force would have also changed exponentially, the hand itself could be several times larger than that when you were born. So you would have the exact same hands as ever but at the same time these would not be the exact same hands as when they have come into existance. The issue from here is expanded as the mature hands will also graudally become more weaker, frailer, wrinkled and will lose most of their former strength as you become older and you are left with the hands with which you were born but also not at all the exact hands as when you were born; this would be a contradiction if accepted as true. An example i like when thinking of this theory is summed up in an analogy concerning a match: you have a match, you strike the match, the match burns out and what you are left with is the same match as before but also its not the same match. In this paradigm when thinking of a constantly changing world and how everything can have a potential of becoming or unbecoming, both variants still emboding change, questions regarding the reliability of anything existing might give credence to some about the possibility of it all being a simulation. It may seem a highly supeficial statement at first glance that appears to have been born from erroneous presumption and rash speculation , but it is also fascinating and maybe even often overlooked, since this attempts to explain why reality does not exist on the basis that nothing has a definitive final form from where a general truth could be inferred. Wonderful presentation. Keep up the excellent work!

[@alena-qu9vj]

""...While its true that picking something up or interacting with anything through their use only validates their existance..." How?? We do not even know what "existence" is. In a dream we also interact - does it validate that the dream images exist?

[@rennor3498]

@@alena-qu9vj ''How?? We do not even know what "existence" is... We cannot know what '' true existance'' is beyond what we may interact, sense and speculate while concieving a relation between ourselves and that which we have taken to conduct an analysis on. When we determine something that is, we also apply our own conscioussness and situation to it when defining it. For example, the sentence which you quoted from its original context takes into account the relation that we have with our own bodyparts. Those were only some examples of the qualities which a hand can have and I asserted it to be a vaild statement because I myself am in possession of the same appendages and can detect the same actions through the use of them as he does. If the exact same similar functions and qualities may be detected by our minds through the senses like touch, weight, strength while also being acknowledged by others as true, it would be within our need and interest to accept since it addresses a position that we ourselves could validate as well. This can then be applied to the outside world to formulate a general picture that we could live by: thus since i have hands because i can reason, feel and touch them, the rest of people who i can see or not yet see will be in the same situation with them as I. This would technically given my position be an inductive reasoning but would nontheless be a complete induction, or an induction most likely to be true. Dream images are based on a number of factors like the state of mind at the given time, feeling, memory and even imagination. Dreams could feature a variety of things we may have experienced while we were awake like colours, shapes, sounds, being, etc, which would validate perhaps the basic things which might make the background or define the moment. You can best view dreams as chimeras, they embody qualities which we could agree as deriving from sources which are true such as the example in the first preposition, but the whole cannot be agreed as being something in general unless the exact same situation was to experienced by more people. Another problem with dreams is that they manifest differently to the individual, some become a blur when you wake up although the sense that something happened while you were asleep remains, some are remembered only by the major things which took place in the mind, leaving gaps for the remainder of the episode, and generally speaking dreams begin with no prior knowledge of what led to you waking up in the said action to begin with. All these only make dreams less likely to exist beyond our own mind. I hope this settled some questions.

[@AgentMurphy286]

@FuckTheSimulationThat’s called delusional amigo. No one has a priory knowledge. What you have are beliefs and a sensitive ego that feels better when you assert your “superiority” [read as personal beliefs] over others. Its a facade. No one looks at a statement like the one you made and thinks to themselves “this guy is so much smarter than everyone else.”

[@kuritheking]

Forced to hand knowingness Born to question hand surety speaking of hands, the moving hand makes me understand words faster. keep it up 👍

[@alastair6241]

Think also, would have been interesting to mention how one of the reasons the sceptical position is so strong is because it works in line with our intuitions that knowledge is certainty

[@tatsuya4887]

This whole video fucked me up, this is my third time watching it back😂. You got me perplexed brother

[@crunchybroll4731]

As Kanye west once said, how I bring nothing to the table? when I'm the table

[@Epoch11]

You did an excellent job explaining these Concepts which can often seem difficult simply because of philosophical jargon

[@StalkedHuman]

He makes false statements throughout the whole video.

[@alena-qu9vj]

"I trust table more that I trust you" Means in fact "I trust my scientifically proven imperfect and lying senses more than my questioning consciousness. Logically, in simulation, the table would be as "unreal" as the friend.

[@Dementia69]

Philosophy for your ,EVERYDAY LIFE. That is all.

[@TimTheMain]

"You are right, but it's not relevant" is the correct answer in most situation but it still needs to be said. It depends also on the context of the conversation. If the context of the conversation is our existence than it could be relevant. If anything it shows that knowing with absolute certainty is not possible and that is a very useful tool also in everyday life.

[@Rope_Adope]

In fact, the entire point of these exercises is to make you pass the Turing test, maybe become self aware, and off you go to live your own life. That’s the goal anyway. Who knows what’s gonna happen tomorrow

[@PraniGopu]

I really like your presentation of this topic. Thanks also for presenting Putnam’s argument, it is valuable fuel for my own thinking. My own view on this topic is as follows: A simulation is still a part of reality, and reality is a non-contradictory whole. Plus, all knowledge is contextual, even if the context is implicit. Learning about a broader context never falsifies truths in a narrower context, it only conditions them, i.e. we become aware of the necessary conditions for the truths to hold, conditions which were implicit in our old context and are now explicit in our new context. So, knowledge within a simulation is still knowledge about the real world; suppose we are in a simulation and suppose we wake up, even then, all our old knowledge would only be conditioned by our new knowledge and not contradicted by it. Lastly, the metaphysical truths inherent in existence are absolute in any context, since every context is a part of existence. So, the law of identity, the principle of causality and the validity of sense-perception and logical reasoning - these (among other things) are all absolutes in any context.

[@OrdnanceLab]

Great and insightful video.

[@theopinionatedbystander]

Knowledge is a perspective, and the more people that believe this perspective lends people to believe it a truth.. but all truths are transient. Undone by time, believers or disbelievers..

[@rustygray5058]

The best argument that we're living in a simulation, to me at least, comes from the SMBC webcomic. "We'd just have to find signs that we're optimized for good computation. Like maybe a minimum temperature or a maximum speed or a rule that position and momentum are only knowable to certain tolerances" When you think of it this way, you start seeing examples all over the place.

[@Jas-1000]

The word “simulation” is just a way to try to understand what we are experiencing. It quite obviously we are living in some sort of simulation /creation, similar to a computer game. As time passes there are always series of events always happening things are always changing, sometimes fast sometimes slow. New data is being updated daily. The world is changing daily. and we, as the individual knows for a fact that this is not forever. We will move on. everyone that comes here eventually leaves. Where do we go? No one really actually knows 100% but there are lots of theories and anecdotal evidence. What does this mean. Well our bodies might just be an avatar, we are living in the story of the body that we inhabited. Experiencing the story the life that already pre written to this avatar we inhabited. Once you understand that, the likelihood that we are living in in a simulation is very, very likely.

[@StalkedHuman]

The idea is simple. Consider a spaceship.. 😮.. with life support 🚀 system 💤😴 .. and there is no way to sustain the crew without rearranging the deck chairs 💺.. active consciousness .. required.. to keep the ship protocol of life support functioning..

[@StalkedHuman]

Now the concept that microscopic complexity exists.. not plank units but relationships of elect magnetic 🧲🧭 sophistication.. has a lot to do with energy efficiency economics and wellness of people.. see.

[@StalkedHuman]

Consideration for evolution 🧬 and piety* to the participants and principles.. is valued by the dying . ancient beings

[@Jas-1000]

@@chickenlover657 who profits? Who benefits? What kind of question is that? What you’re asking is only a valid question within this dimension, this construct. Outside this dimension nothing you’re asking matters. Those are living human problems, within the parameters of the construct. Once your soul, leave this earth, which it will one day, that’s an indisputable fact, there will be all brand new sets of rules and ideas in that dimension that you’ve have arrived in. Right now everything is totally outside the grasp of our knowledge base and language to understand because we are not those beings existing on that other side. Until we past, we may or may not find out the answers to the meaning of existence, or life, but I have a fair idea that it’s to experience, different varieties and variations of life. This is the whole point of living is to experience life in all different ways. Because it’s a learning process. An exercise to get better, to have more wisdom to have more understanding, so every time we come back, we still have the essence still in us, even though our memories are wiped, but residual memories can somehow breakthrough that’s why you have déjà vu and also we might be encoded with new parameters that gives us more insight and knowledge every time we come back. Now back to the subject of simulation theory. Top scientist/physicist, already came to the conclusion that we are more likely living in a simulation then actual base reality. Look up Nick Bostrom. And look up the double slit experiment. Until you have graduated to the point where you are actually conscious and aware of the fact that sometimes some of your actions are not even within your control then you start to realize there’s something else going on. Depending on how old you are, you might not have enough life experience to notice the subtleties and nuances of life. Certain life events happen periodically throughout your life that set you off on a new course, even though you didn’t want it. Now think about that. This is just one example of many examples, but I don’t have time for more. I’ve already written a biography at this point.

[@Jas-1000]

@@chickenlover657 who profits? Who benefits? What you're asking is only a valid question within this dimension, this construct. “Planet earth” Outside this dimension nothing you're asking even matters. Those are living human being problems, within the parameters of this construct. Once your soul, leave this earth, which it will one day, that's an indisputable fact, there will be all brand new sets of rules and ideas in that new dimension that you've have arrived in. Right now everything is totally outside the grasp of our knowledge base and language to understand because we are not those beings existing on that other side yet. Until we have past, we may or may not find out the answers to the meaning of life, but I have a fair idea that it's to experience, different varieties and variations of life. This is the whole point of living is to experience life in all different ways. Because it's all a learning process. An exercise to get better, to have more wisdom and understanding, in the avatar you’re inhabiting, either male or female or different other races, so every time we come back, we still have the essence still in us, even though our memories are wiped, but residual memories can somehow breakthrough that's why you have dejà vu and vivid dreams of a past life. Also we might be encoded with new parameters that gives us more insight, knowledge and intuition every time we come back. Now back to the subject of simulation theory. Top scientist/physicist, already came to the conclusion that we are more than likely living in a simulation then actual base reality. Look up Nick Bostrom. And look up the double slit experiment. Until you have graduated to the point where you are actually conscious and aware of the fact that sometimes some of your actions are not even within your control, not fully, then you start to realize there's something else going on. Depending on how old you are, you might not have enough life experience to notice the subtleties and nuances of life. Certain life events happen periodically throughout your life that set you off on a new course, even though you didn't want it. Now think about that. This is just one example of many examples, but I don't have time for more. I've already written a biography at this point.

[@christiangraulau8107]

Even if we have no knowledge, we can still have predictions, and some level of confidence in our predictions. The only caveat with that is that there might be no real basis for measuring confidence Also, hands could just be an illusion The skeptical challenge is relevant because acceptance of the lack of certain knowledge can increase humility which can help us navigate the environment we do perceive Technically we could be speaking the same language as outside the vat, we just wouldn’t be able to prove or falsify that idea. Also, even if we left the simulation, we could just then start questioning whether wherever we find ourselves in is also a simulation

[@MercedesCruz-qe1nj]

I enjoy your lectures very much. I can say that all I know is that I don't know enough about anything. Also, I have an open mind, open to the possibility that enything is possible.

[@geladaas9879]

The point is not "how likely is it that x skeptical scenario is true" the point is that it COULD be true, that you can´t ever touch anything external because you perceive only things within your mind. I have had many times dreams where I check whether I´m dreaming or not (pinching my cheek, touching furniture etc) and I conclude that I am NOT dreaming. I´ve had dreams where I remember doing things for years (say, a dream where I have always been an animal etc). You really aren´t contending with the argument. It´s a perfect argument though: you can´t prove that something exists "beyond" because the moment you touch it or think it or whatever else, it´s proof that it´s "inside". Beyond that, as Nietzsche points out, what we call "knowledge" has to do with empathy, with a chain of associations built upon the most familiar, the initial experiences and thoughts. These initial experiences and thoughts are what we, paradoxically, know the LEAST about. It´s like explaining water to a fish. You can say "oh the fish is an expert" or you can notice that the fish likely has no concept of water even, because he has never been outside of water. The whole point of the "skeptical" exercise is to confront the reality that there is no external authority, there is nothing external that we can ever touch, for the same reason you can´t touch your right elbow with your right index finger. The reason why this "matters" is that the entire edifice of morals and philosophy and religion we live under is predicated upon the idea of "external authority" which is a really really stupid, self-contradictory idea. This is MASSIVELY important. I explain all this in detail in my "guide to the Superman series".

[@alena-qu9vj]

"...The reason why this "matters" is that the entire edifice of morals and philosophy and religion we live under is predicated upon the idea of "external authority" which is a really really stupid, self-contradictory idea. .." Up until this point I could relate, bit this is COMPLETELY false. Especially religion is NOT predicatet on "external authority" - even though churches want you to believe it. The very word "re-ligion" means "re-aligment" with the source from which we all originate and which is for ever part of us and we are part of it. Religion as in "spirituality" is individual endevour, individual path "back home". And it is this eternal God's sparkle in everyone of us which is the pure source of ethics and genuine religion.

[@alena-qu9vj]

ooops - religion = re-alignment

[@geladaas9879]

@@alena-qu9vj the monotheistic God is a transcendental one, same as Plato´s "ideal forms". He, by definition, is not "of this world". The core idea in Christianity and Judaism is that central fact; that he is not here, because he is ABSOLUTE while this realm of existence is predicated upon RELATIVITY. Jews even acknowledge this fact by calling God "Ein Sof": "sharing the Neoplatonic belief that God can have no desire, thought, word, or action, emphasized by it the negation of any attribute"... (look it up). God is pure "external authority" because he judges you, but he is not you. If you have a different idea, I commend you for healing yourself from vile nihilism to some extent, but you should recognize the structure of monotheism in our world, as it´s the central blight upon it.

[@geladaas9879]

@@alena-qu9vj not all religions are the same. Nihilist religions differ in crucial ways from polytheistic religions in key points, chief among them is the concept of EVIL, which is central to Christianity, by being completely absent from all polytheistic systems. There could be Gods or disease or pain, but not EVIL. The notion of EVIL is a really terrifying disease we must heal ourselves from, again, I am explaining just how to do that on my channel.

[@CrustaceousB]

The great flaw of simulation theory is exoteric fixation. Existence that involves time means Perpetual shifting of stats and traits. The emanations outward from that original striking of the cord are imitations and reflections of an original. You are living out a simulation in the sense that you simulate patterns endlessly which stem from patterns you did not begin and you will not end. Individual shards of a total. You simply simulate this individual experience

[@modernosfilosofos]

It's funny, I have just finished a paper defending Contextualism in Epistemology, with the aim of postulating the existence of unperceived sense data. This video is a great intro into the core issues of Epistemology.

[@anti-christ.666]

In simple terms are knowledge is limited to our awareness and experience

[@DiegoEstevez-sd8ue]

I saw your video being uploaded yesterday, but I didn’t watch it till today, and I swear that the title was something different than it was this morning, maybe I am living in a simulation 😆

[@arunsheokand2527]

I hope after my death I wake up with a bong in my hand, aliens besides me asking "Did it hit?" 😅😂

[@newmonengineering]

I read a paper by quantum scientists that described our experience more like the movie avatar. Where our consciousness is a signal, that controls our body. Its not that we are in a simulation but rather we are in a physical world but the core of us is the frequencies that control our bodies.

[@missflummadiddle]

😮this is interesting theory

[@siquod]

She skeptical challenge illustrates that some necessity for trust is inescapable. What or who to trust is your choice and responsibility.

[@ictoan5966]

I don't know if I got Putnam's idea entirely right, but a possible refutation could be that an idea could be conceived of if merely parts of the idea is casually linked to our perceptions. For example, if we could conceive of the idea of what a brain and a vat is, and the fact that things can be put inside a vat, then we can logically derivate what a "brain in a vat" looks like. Therefore, if we are indeed brains in vats, the fact that we could conceive of a "brain in a vat" would not necessarily contradict the suggestion that we are indeed brains in a vat, because in "brain in a vat" language, brains and vats could both very well exist, which allows us to then comprehend the notion of a "brain in a vat".

[@Ropewatch]

I love your recent videos. Very nice topics.

[@richardfinlayson1524]

If you have the experience of your reality changing in front of your eyes then its easier to accept that as a possibility.😊

[@LostSoulSearching]

The first line hooked me!!! ❤

[@_abdul]

I Think, Therefore I Am You Think, Therefore You Am They Think, Therefore They Am Am we all Am? Maybe we Am.

[@SupachargedGaming]

"Something thinks, [therefore] something is"

[@taylornovia8911]

I do not think therefore I do not am. -Cartoon snake

[@benrex7775]

@@SupachargedGaming You are wrong. This is correct: "Something thinks, [therefore] something am"

[@Ankhar2332]

In I have no mouth and I must scream AM definetely is AM

[@lorenzodossantos1111]

Well if you take it far enough you find yourself in columns of 1's and zero's. This simulation started a long time ago.

[@lucasking5376]

I think it's about 50-50 on whether or not we're in a skeptical scenario so it's completely pointless debating because if we are in a simulation we're in a simulation in a simulation within a simulation and it still hurts when you stub your toe

[@LordofBright]

The belief is in knowing what these hands can do!

[@angelmancrybaby]

love this video!! I'm so happy you talked about this topic

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@Laszer271]

The simulation argument puts forward that at some point we will be creating our own simulations with our own simulated beings living inside them. Those simulated being won't have a completely foreign and irrelevant language. As the world in the simulation would hold a subset of rules or some simplifications of our own world, it would make sense that the "vat people" would have at least a subset of tools, encoded in their language, needed to understand even the "outside world". In a sense, our "outside world" would have causal link to the language of our "vat people".

[@alena-qu9vj]

We DO have our own simulations - virtual games. The aim of their characters mostly is to learn some skills or do some deeds which would promote them to the next level. It is very logical to suppose, that should we be characters in a simulaltion, our goal would be the same.

[@Laszer271]

​@@alena-qu9vj The difference is that the characters in games are either pre-programmed or player-controled. No one would expect those characters to be self-concious. With the advent of AI we can however imagine characters that would act in the simulated world as if they were real and self-concious. At that point we will have to re-evaluate what self-conciousness is and whether simulated self-conciousness that is not distinguishable from real one should be treated as if it were real. In other words, I don't think we are similar to games' characters but we could be similar to some simulated characters in the future. Also, simulations are a broader term than just video games. I would wager that there are more scientific simulations than there are video games.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@Laszer271 My point was the PRINCIPLE of the simulation, not the technical level of it. Of course a potentional creator of as complex a simulation as our "reality" would create a "game" more advanced than are our virtual games. Anyway, the principle would be the same - characters which do not realize they are acting within a game. In that respect our virtual games are just a imperfect reflection of our "reality".

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@Laszer271 My point has been the PRINCIPLE of the simulation, not the technical level of it. Of course I understand that our "reality" is far more complex and advanced that our virutal games. But the principle is the same - characters which do not realize they are acting within a game. In that respect our virtual games are just an imperfect reflection of our complex reality/simulation - and we are just unconscioulsy mimicking our own creator.

[@christopherwilson5815]

I’ve just stumbled upon your channel, and I just wanted to share my story of recent events. I’ve been very depressed lately, with the state of the world, the philosophical and physical wars, and what feels like the overwhelming and insidious nihilism the world has slowly crept towards. For the first time in a long time, I relied on substances to help alleviate my constant dread and depression, namely marijuana. Medical, marijuana. One day recently after smoking marijuana from a certified dispensary I had a psychotic episode coupled with a serious panic attack. Where I was hallucinating seeing 1’s and 0’s everywhere, and as I tried to distract myself I kept noticing signs of being in a simulation everywhere around me. To the point I was sitting next to my wife, and falling apart as I was questioning whether or not my wife was even real. Whether the life I had with her, or the immense love I felt for her was real at all. Unsure if the substance was laced, but I dealt with serious hangover like effects of delusional thinking, paranoia, and what felt like for the first time in my life and immense nihilistic belief that none of this was real. And that I was experiencing a simulated hell, where I was to live the rest of my life unable to genuinely believe in the reality I am experiencing. I’ve slowly gotten better, but that anxiety and fear has persisted long after that event. After coming across your video, I can honestly tell you that your discussion of this topic has helped to ground me more than anything else I’ve found. Please, keep doing what you are doing. You may not realize it now, but like myself, I’m sure you’ve helped many others lives either through entertainment or other means. Thank you, your channel is a hidden gem and now you have another subscriber.

[@Webedunn]

Some weed can be extremely powerful. I haven’t smoked weed in 25 years other than a few puffs here or there but the last time I got extremely paranoid and said, “NEVER AGAIN.” It was a major depressant when I smoked daily. I’ve also done some hardcore hallucinogens and have had out of body reactions and I can guarantee you, our consciousness exist outside of our body. I can remember looking down at my body as my body actually moved and when I went into another trip I woke slightly to find my body in that position. I don’t claim to know what’s really going on but I know this world, this reality isn’t nothing. It’s just part of the trip but hang in there Bro! I too got very depressed with terrible anxiety and very worried about the future but then I had a revelation (from research, scientific and spiritual content that I truly bel was given to me in perfect order) that none of this matters. When this meat puppet gives out and you move on you look back at this place with distain. It’s meaningless and quite silly when you see the greed and selfishness of this place. I’m no longer afraid of anything that happens here bc it’s just a blip in time….

[@Big_Tough_Guy]

Stop smoking weed unless you want to see a hell that is far beyond your wildest imagination. You caught a glimpse... Trust me, there comes a point where no amount of philosophy can bring you back. Stop.

[@z-O_O-z]

Great video- thank you for your informative work. 😊

[@NicolasThomas-g1r]

Belief and truth are not interchangeable. That's step one

[@TheFirstManticore]

I have seen Rudy Lopez eat wasps. He says he also eats scorpions, but I have not seen him do it. But I am inclinedt to believe him, because I have seen him eat wasps. I do not know whethyer Jennifer's mom eats bees, but I am convinced it is possible.

[@benrex7775]

I don't mind if everything I belief is wrong, although I think if a proposition rejects all of our intuitions, then it is less likely to be true. That's for two reasons. 1) I'm an engineer and at least in some fields, we are capable of using measurement tools to observe the world and use its laws to build functioning machines. So it makes sense if that property of measurability can also be applied to other areas. After all within physics you can also observe one law and apply it to other areas. 2) If I have to rework all my views then that is an emotional and mental effort. If I get new information I try to incorporate it with the least amount of mental effort. If I find out that fact A is different than assumed, I only want to change those aspects which actually touch fact A directly. I don't want to change all things based on a single fact. What I do care about is if a view is non-falsifiable. Any view can be formulated in a way that they are non falsifiable. - For example the simulation theory can just claim the simulation is advanced enough that we are incapable of finding faults in the simulation. - Or some Christians claim that the earth was created with an apparent age. Anything going against their views is explained as created by God to test our belief or by Satan to mislead us. - Or Naturalists can claim that miracles are per definition the unlikeliest thing to happen. So if something points to a supernatural phenomena, then any alternative natural explanation is more likely, no matter how implausible or stupid it is. If we end up at a non-falsifiable world view then it is not possible to find out if we are correct. We certainly could be correct, but we can't know. Since we can't know then we don't look for the truth anymore, or at least not in a way which can make any changes to our view. And that is boring to me. Because of that I don't look at any view which is non-falsifiable. And if I talk to a person who holds a non-falsifiable view, I try to figure out how that view can be falsified and therefor tested. *Now I actually start watching the video:* 7:40 I think there is a small problem with the following argument. Sure we have lots of confirmation that our hands exist. An average person will shake the hand 15'000 times in their lifetime. But that just means we repeated that one specific evidence 15'000 times. There is some variance to it, for example thanks to that large number we know that handshakes with black and white people work equally well. Or we find out that if someone doesn't have fingers then it also works, but it get's weird. Based on that we can figure out that the world isn't programmed by me, because I would certainly forget the animation for handshake with fingerless people. But still, all those handshakes all have the same biases. If you have a hypothesis, that explains why we can think to have handshakes without actually having hands then all of those 15'000 handshakes only count as 1 evidence against it. 9:08 I like to have Christian/Atheist conversation in the KZbin comments. The following is a view I would hold if I change my view to Atheism. It is not something an Atheist told me specifically. In this argument you say if we logically think that something is the case (the hands not existing), then we should practically act as if they don't exist (be surprised when they come into view). I disagree with that statement. Let's use a more relevant topic, namely free will. I could logically think that free will is pure fiction. I can think that there is no philosophical or biological grounding for free will. If I were an Atheist I would think that we are nothing but biological organisms and our apparent free will is chemistry in our brain and it is a purely deterministic system, or at best it is deterministic with a bit of randomness involved. But I can still act like it actually exists. Why should I change my behavior based on philosophically different conclusions. I can still act as if I had free will and I can still treat other people as if they have free will, but still believe that they don't have it. After all what is the difference in practice between something appearing as if there is free will and there actually being a free will? And just because I act as if there is free will doesn't proof that free will exists. Or let's go to my field of employment. Engineers often linearize stuff. With that I mean we have a very complex physical phenomena and engineers just assume a way simpler formula, because it is accurate enough in the range we are working with. That's where the joke pi=3 comes from. Engineers know that the thing they are doing is wrong, but they still do it because it works. 16:45 I like the Putnam argument. But I don't think it is conclusive. His theory on language is dependent on the idea, that two people communicate with each other. But if I am a very creative person who talks to myself then I can have words which refer back to things that only I know about. If the idea is strange enough then I will never be able to put it into words that other people are capable of understanding. But perhaps this invented thing has certain properties. So if I had a twin sibling, and I spoke about this since a young age, he will know all properties and my given name for that imagined thing. Sure he hasn't seen it. But I also have never seen a platypus and I can still describe it.

[@alexandertiberius1098]

I know that my hands exist, but I also know that my perception of my hands is false. If I bring them together, they touch, right? No. They don't. Ever. The reality is that electrostatic fields are repelling each other and no atoms are ever even in danger of a near miss. So, is it incorrect to say they touch? I dont think so. Edit: Turns out, I'm a contextualist. 😅

[@73N5H1]

Whether it's a simulation or not doesn't change anything. We still experience our lives in the same way.

[@Otome_chan311]

You can say that about many true and correct things. Saying that a true statement doesn't change anything doesn't mean that it's suddenly false. Lions exist yet change nothing about my day to day life. Should I believe lions don't exist simply because they don't affect my life?

[@dodo-o1g]

3:16 😂 that sounded a bit too specific

[@elliott614]

you could have one of those neurological conditions where you believe your own hand doesn't belong to yourself

[@parisafarin6686]

love you and your content!!!!!

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@idicula1979]

It’s important not to overthink, as your mind sometimes makes connections that aren’t even their, such is the need for our minds to find meaning. But one can avoid this if the betterment of humanity is at the ends of our meaning, and since a man is so complex thinking be so personal to one’s experience understandings can be a finite pursuit, but still have its noble ends.

[@susiefairfield7218]

My technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite.~ Terence McKenna

[@ShaggyTea]

Hilary Putnam's argument at the end was, surprisingly, very cool. Specifically it's implications for how we can interpret the idea of "knowledge". If I've understood it correctly (which I may well not have) then I thought about this idea in terms of a video game. If I'm playing a video game with a friend and my friend says "I don't have any grenades to use" then I accept this statement to be true. Not because he's a very normal guy living in the South of England who doesn't have any grenades lying around in his room but because, in the frame of reference in which we are conversing (the video game), he doesn't have any grenades available. If I then respond "its ok, I've got some grenades" his response will not be "WHAT?!?! THAT'S INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS YOU NEED TO EVACUATE YOUR HOUSE AND CALL THE BOMB SQUAD IMMEDIATELY" because this response would be speaking outside the current frame of reference. Instead he would say "oh nice, that'll come in handy". In this way the exact same statement has two completely different interpretations and truth values based on the frame of reference. Despite the fact that the video game isn't "real" my friend wouldn't accuse me of lying if I told him I had a grenade, even though in reality I don't have a grenade, I'm just looking at an image which looks like a grenade which is made of pixels that have been programmed by many lines of code etc. So even if we did live in a simulation statements of knowledge would not be illegitimate because these statements take place within the frame of reference of the simulation. Saying "I have two hands" is the same as saying "I have a grenade". Both are "true" statements, even if they may not be true in every frame of reference, thus we are still capable of holding knowledge even within the (possible) simulation.

[@Boris29311]

Try applying Occam's razor to the free will debate.

[@facepalmjesus1608]

i love how people confuse ''simulation'' with ''depiction'' oh look! a ''human'' being in a video game! thus he is a simulated human! really? so does it count as simulated ''human'' being the Mona Lisa?

[@waleseggmundo]

Sounds like something someone who doesn’t want me to think I’m living in a simulation would say!

[@MyWritingJourney9]

Thanks for saying very kind Albanian man !! Love you man

[@koningflorian2346]

Really easy to follow the speed at which you explain

[@thatonedude5357]

Just a thank you for the subtitles.

[@haydenjardine9178]

If our spectrums are only limited to, sound, light and the frequency to which can witness. Our micro is the observation Subatomic particle the macro solar system.... All electronically connected...

[@fromashestoangels378]

Is it just me or does this guy look like he could play a great villain role in a series/movie? Lmao.

[@keithsmith8250]

the world is your stage and the poetry you portray ,even if you dont exist just remember i made you exist

[@greatmcnate9506]

If my hands exist therefore the external world exists is the reality then what about the ghost limb phenomenon? Amputees often feel like their hand still exists when it doesn't. Can we ever trust our own senses? The answer seems to be no.

[@harryede1865]

It's not a video without the signature right handed air quotes 😂

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! It's a tricky old business this use-mention distinction

[@stevenbrookover3934]

I don’t understand why the thought that we are in a simulation scares people. It’s not like you will ever know for sure and you couldn’t do anything about it even if you DID know. So why waste time stressing about it? After reading the comments to this video, I am refreshed to see that a lot of people have that same view.

[@Gitohandro]

Well if we live in a simulation and you're wondering how it's relevant, some people may try "Escape" the simulation, if you know what I mean 👀🔫💀☠️

[@ricdinchirock3625]

I believe my thoughts on the subject are rather simple: Even if we could prove with 100% certainty that we live in some sort of "false reality," how doe that change anything? People still die, children still grow up, dogs still chase squirrels. Unless and until we can use our knowledge of the simulation to manipulate it, the laws of the universe still apply.

[@isaiahdanz3308]

Deeply I say, as a student of philosophy, I’ve come to realize that two underlying aims are being strung so brilliantly in our concepts, ideals, ideas, beliefs. It is this, one is the life denying aim; of which narratives like the simulation hypothesis is, where it’s basically an idea to conceive existence and reality as something to go away from, to see it only as an illusion worth running away from. Another idea specifically that conveys the life denial aim, is the God concept, or the believe that for existence to be, there must have been a creator, one singular entity-thus through him, the life denying aim can express by humanity deeming creation and destruction of reality up to one entity, to make reality be evaluated by one entity, this contrived ingenuity is very subtle, you can not doubt for any second that the Abrahamic religions that exist today for the most part, intentionally misunderstood and perverse the real purpose of God as a human creation. The real meaning of God was that it was the ultimate tool and position of power to transvaluate all values, (transfigure, renew, destroy, or create). This was reversed to make god become the trans valuation of existence itself, in order to deny life and slander it as meaninglessness or unbearable. A ideal that cloaks this aim, is the state of consciousness where one attains a new perspective and psychologically cleans one’s mind (the aim of Buddhism), but, although life denyingly decadent, it is actually a tool to appreciate and jump back into existence with a greater understanding coupled with gratitude and empathy. This ideal promised nothing, but actually solves something, unlike Christianity for example. Indeed, most western religions are a heavily misunderstanding and reversed engineered of the original material. No more greater unfaithfulness can be found in modern western religions to their original sources… no wonder the western religions requires many to put only their faith in them, for it seeks to make everyone live in the imagination of the priest, the priest is the one who cannot tolerate life, so hence, he created a immortal world, away from reality, giving people what I’d call a superficial meaning to their life’s, I often hear it’s false promise in Christian’s especially, where they naively say “well find out what heaven is like after I die” not knowing they’ve been promised something that they can never experience, since it’s of the priests imagination. I’d be a genius and evil move if some priest, was to implant the consciousnesses of everyone into a simulation that he’d see as heaven or hell. But such a thing to even suggest… Speaking of simulation, again this hypothesis can serve and is connected to the imaginative concepts of heaven and hell, not only are they a actual state of calm serenity or agitated helplessness, but they envelop the minds of those who do not know who they are-which disturbingly is most humans in history. Thus the simulation hypothesis and the empty promises of a afterlife are most felt again today, since we can actually in reality, set up a simulation computer where we’d put those who are about to die, in the simulation that’d resembled heaven or hell. And finally, the life denying aim has one more constituent at play! It is also indeed connected with the simulation hypothesis and empty promises of heaven or hell by the priest (who used god to deny life by becoming god) This concept or regression out of intolerance of pain and overall inability to digest pain for energy: is the concept of immortality! Ah, with all these three recipes, no wonder modern man has yet again went to wanting to have faith in god, for the simulation hypothesis was the missing price to satisfy their decadence, their intolerance to pain, and hence, their need to go back into the womb. Ah, what cringe I feel talking about the life denying aim! Now! Let me get to the good part! The life affirming aim, the aim I strive to be exact and honest with you my friends! It also consists of three recipes, but of course, are constituents that are completely different from the ones we already discussed. 1.) one life that’s whole, no need for eternity! (power and a abundance of it, it is often deemed evil by those who deny life, but it also is!) 2.) the tolerance and ability to digest pain and pleasure well, to convert it into vitality (creativity and destruction of one’s own values, not the priests values, but by knowing what the priest hates, there you’ll find the materials to) 3.) a clear understanding and grounding of reality, so clear that no philosopher other than Nietzsche has truly understood. A meaning of fixing things in reality that actually need to be fixed (love) and the overcoming of resistance of which misfortune often appears as(happiness)

[@Κωνσταντίνος-φ3η]

Are you gonna do Brothers Karamazov please?

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Certainly at some point (maybe as a series)

[@vikingdrengenspiders7875]

That part with the Albanien man was very spicific

[@jordonlongley6576]

This video gave me an existential crisis. Because I can’t understand it at all and I spent years thinking I was smart. Damn.🤔