Solipsism, Transhumanism and Elon Musk

[inavalan]

Is life a video game? | Elon Musk | Code Conference 2016

One in billions not to be a simulation ... (?)




"... Either
 we're going to create simulations that
 are indistinguishable from
 reality, or civilization will cease to
 exist. Those are the two options."

[laughter]

Apr 15, 2021 22:46:38 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Is life a video game? | Elon Musk | Code Conference 2016

One in billions not to be a simulation ... (?)




"... Either
 we're going to create simulations that
 are indistinguishable from
 reality, or civilization will cease to
 exist. Those are the two options."

The simulation theory is ultimately just monotheism in disguise. It's entirely relatable to solipsism, and so, not strictly disprovable, but rests on several assumptions that crack if not crumble under either critical thinking or pointing to the existential truth.

[Reefs]

Apr 15, 2021 22:46:38 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Is life a video game? | Elon Musk | Code Conference 2016

One in billions not to be a simulation ... (?)


"... Either
 we're going to create simulations that
 are indistinguishable from
 reality, or civilization will cease to
 exist. Those are the two options."

I didn't know transhumanists were alarmists. Pathetic. 

[Reefs]

Apr 16, 2021 5:53:35 GMT -5 laughter said:

The simulation theory is ultimately just monotheism in disguise. It's entirely relatable to solipsism, and so, not strictly disprovable, but rests on several assumptions that crack if not crumble under either critical thinking or pointing to the existential truth.

It's transhumanism, which has its roots in solipsism, i.e. a purely intellectual perspective of the world and life. So it's probably not particularly odd that most tech billionaires promote transhumanist ideals. And I'd assume that people who mostly live in their heads would find those ideals attractive or at least plausible. From the SR perspective, however, it's an extremely narrow way of experiencing life.

Here's an interesting article which sums up the transhumanist perspective, IMO:

Transhumanism’s Solipsistic Utopianism

Hollywood has been promoting transhumanism for a long time. There's an interesting movie with Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve, Replicas, which I think points to the actual goal of transhumanism. I can recommend watching it, not because I liked it but because it shows you the mindset we are dealing with here. IMO, the transhumanists have no idea what makes up a human being in its entirety. Essentially, their perspective is so narrowly centered around ego and intellect that it's almost immature. Which is a bit ironic because the goal of transhumanism is expansion of mind and consciousness. But since their approach and perspective is purely intellectual, they are naturally confusing mind with intellect and consciousness with mind. So the expansion they envision is just an expansion on this narrow band of experience that the intellect allows.

ETA: There's another good movie with Ewan McGregor, Zoe, where they show the transhumanist ideal of blurring the lines between humans and robots and how such a society would look like. It's also about memory and feelings, essentially you can choose whatever life story and identity you want and also whatever feelings you want, it can all be created synthetically - you just need to take a 'happy pill' for feeling happy or a 'in love pill' for experiencing the feeling of being in love. There are some glaring logical errors in the script, but it's a good production nevertheless.

[laughter]

Apr 16, 2021 7:48:42 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Apr 16, 2021 5:53:35 GMT -5 laughter said:

The simulation theory is ultimately just monotheism in disguise. It's entirely relatable to solipsism, and so, not strictly disprovable, but rests on several assumptions that crack if not crumble under either critical thinking or pointing to the existential truth.

It's transhumanism, which has its roots in solipsism, i.e. a purely intellectual perspective of the world and life. So it's probably not particularly odd that most tech billionaires promote transhumanist ideals. And I'd assume that people who mostly live in their heads would find those ideals attractive or at least plausible. From the SR perspective, however, it's an extremely narrow way of experiencing life.

Here's an interesting article which sums up the transhumanist perspective, IMO:

Transhumanism’s Solipsistic Utopianism

Hollywood has been promoting transhumanism for a long time. There's an interesting movie with Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve, Replicas, which I think points to the actual goal of transhumanism. I can recommend watching it, not because I liked it but because it shows you the mindset we are dealing with here. IMO, the transhumanists have no idea what makes up a human being in its entirety. Essentially, their perspective is so narrowly centered around ego and intellect that it's almost immature. Which is a bit ironic because the goal of transhumanism is expansion of mind and consciousness. But since their approach and perspective is purely intellectual, they are naturally confusing mind with intellect and consciousness with mind. So the expansion they envision is just an expansion on this narrow band of experience that the intellect allows.

Interesting points. Now, I wonder, are the flying spaghetti monster's that wrote the code that simulates us just al dente or did they use special keyboards so they could type??

[Reefs]

Apr 16, 2021 8:05:15 GMT -5 laughter said:

Interesting points. Now, I wonder, are the flying spaghetti monster's that wrote the code that simulates us just al dente or did they use special keyboards so they could type??

They used a pipe organ keyboard with several hundred keys.

[andrew]

Apr 16, 2021 7:48:42 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Apr 16, 2021 5:53:35 GMT -5 laughter said:

The simulation theory is ultimately just monotheism in disguise. It's entirely relatable to solipsism, and so, not strictly disprovable, but rests on several assumptions that crack if not crumble under either critical thinking or pointing to the existential truth.

It's transhumanism, which has its roots in solipsism, i.e. a purely intellectual perspective of the world and life. So it's probably not particularly odd that most tech billionaires promote transhumanist ideals. And I'd assume that people who mostly live in their heads would find those ideals attractive or at least plausible. From the SR perspective, however, it's an extremely narrow way of experiencing life.

Here's an interesting article which sums up the transhumanist perspective, IMO:

Transhumanism’s Solipsistic Utopianism

Hollywood has been promoting transhumanism for a long time. There's an interesting movie with Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve, Replicas, which I think points to the actual goal of transhumanism. I can recommend watching it, not because I liked it but because it shows you the mindset we are dealing with here. IMO, the transhumanists have no idea what makes up a human being in its entirety. Essentially, their perspective is so narrowly centered around ego and intellect that it's almost immature. Which is a bit ironic because the goal of transhumanism is expansion of mind and consciousness. But since their approach and perspective is purely intellectual, they are naturally confusing mind with intellect and consciousness with mind. So the expansion they envision is just an expansion on this narrow band of experience that the intellect allows.

Yes. Transhumanism strikes me as materialism on steroids, and what strikes me as conspicuously absent is that there's no 'true' sense of what it means to 'be human'. Although discussions about what it is to 'be human' don't readily slot into non-dual teachings and talks, I think anyone that explores non-duality, in the end, should end up with a deep and true sense of what it means to 'be human' (though it doesn't have to be non-duality specifically, I think anyone that goes deep into general spirituality should come away with a deeper sense of what it means to 'be human').

It's also why many in the world that lean towards atheism...or agnosticism, could be swayed by transhumanism. I suspect it's harder to convince cultures that are more ingrained in spirituality, or religion.

Okay. I actually think we are drifting into pettifroggery, so if you move or delete, it's really okay.

[zendancer]

Apr 16, 2021 7:48:42 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Apr 16, 2021 5:53:35 GMT -5 laughter said:

The simulation theory is ultimately just monotheism in disguise. It's entirely relatable to solipsism, and so, not strictly disprovable, but rests on several assumptions that crack if not crumble under either critical thinking or pointing to the existential truth.

It's transhumanism, which has its roots in solipsism, i.e. a purely intellectual perspective of the world and life. So it's probably not particularly odd that most tech billionaires promote transhumanist ideals. And I'd assume that people who mostly live in their heads would find those ideals attractive or at least plausible. From the SR perspective, however, it's an extremely narrow way of experiencing life.

Here's an interesting article which sums up the transhumanist perspective, IMO:

Transhumanism’s Solipsistic Utopianism

Hollywood has been promoting transhumanism for a long time. There's an interesting movie with Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve, Replicas, which I think points to the actual goal of transhumanism. I can recommend watching it, not because I liked it but because it shows you the mindset we are dealing with here. IMO, the transhumanists have no idea what makes up a human being in its entirety. Essentially, their perspective is so narrowly centered around ego and intellect that it's almost immature. Which is a bit ironic because the goal of transhumanism is expansion of mind and consciousness. But since their approach and perspective is purely intellectual, they are naturally confusing mind with intellect and consciousness with mind. So the expansion they envision is just an expansion on this narrow band of experience that the intellect allows.

ETA: There's another good movie with Ewan McGregor, Zoe, where they show the transhumanist ideal of blurring the lines between humans and robots and how such a society would look like. It's also about memory and feelings, essentially you can choose whatever life story and identity you want and also whatever feelings you want, it can all be created synthetically - you just need to take a 'happy pill' for feeling happy or a 'in love pill' for experiencing the feeling of being in love. There are some glaring logical errors in the script, but it's a good production nevertheless.

Yep. The hi-tech guys and gals are totally clueless concerning the nature of reality, awareness, what it means to be a human or what it means to be any other kind of living thing. Many of them want to be frozen upon death, so that they can be revived in the future after science figures out how to make them eternal. If they could get out of their heads for a while, they might discover that what they are is already eternal!

[Reefs]

Apr 16, 2021 10:13:22 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Apr 16, 2021 7:48:42 GMT -5 Reefs said:

It's transhumanism, which has its roots in solipsism, i.e. a purely intellectual perspective of the world and life. So it's probably not particularly odd that most tech billionaires promote transhumanist ideals. And I'd assume that people who mostly live in their heads would find those ideals attractive or at least plausible. From the SR perspective, however, it's an extremely narrow way of experiencing life.

Here's an interesting article which sums up the transhumanist perspective, IMO:

Transhumanism’s Solipsistic Utopianism

Hollywood has been promoting transhumanism for a long time. There's an interesting movie with Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve, Replicas, which I think points to the actual goal of transhumanism. I can recommend watching it, not because I liked it but because it shows you the mindset we are dealing with here. IMO, the transhumanists have no idea what makes up a human being in its entirety. Essentially, their perspective is so narrowly centered around ego and intellect that it's almost immature. Which is a bit ironic because the goal of transhumanism is expansion of mind and consciousness. But since their approach and perspective is purely intellectual, they are naturally confusing mind with intellect and consciousness with mind. So the expansion they envision is just an expansion on this narrow band of experience that the intellect allows.

ETA: There's another good movie with Ewan McGregor, Zoe, where they show the transhumanist ideal of blurring the lines between humans and robots and how such a society would look like. It's also about memory and feelings, essentially you can choose whatever life story and identity you want and also whatever feelings you want, it can all be created synthetically - you just need to take a 'happy pill' for feeling happy or a 'in love pill' for experiencing the feeling of being in love. There are some glaring logical errors in the script, but it's a good production nevertheless.

Yep. The hi-tech guys and gals are totally clueless concerning the nature of reality, awareness, what it means to be a human or what it means to be any other kind of living thing. Many of them want to be frozen upon death, so that they can be revived in the future after science figures out how to make them eternal. If they could get out of their heads for a while, they might discover that what they are is already eternal!

Yes, there are a lot of flawed premises to be found in that philosophy. It starts with assuming that they have a life. First mistake. Then they apparently assume that they only have one such life. Next mistake. Then they assume that such one life is the sum total of atoms and molecules and DNA plus an extra layer of bits and bytes. Another mistake. And they assume further that the body is just like a car, and similar to car tuning where you add or replace certain parts to make it run more efficient, they think they can do body tuning and get a similar effect. That's one of the weirdest mistakes. I probably could go on, but really, as you say, all it takes is to realize that instead of having a life, that they are life. And that there's no end to life. Transhumanist problem solved.

[inavalan]

Apr 15, 2021 22:46:38 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Is life a video game? | Elon Musk | Code Conference 2016

One in billions not to be a simulation ... (?)




"... Either
 we're going to create simulations that
 are indistinguishable from
 reality, or civilization will cease to
 exist. Those are the two options."

I found interesting the angle Musk was thinking about the idea of a "simulated reality". He wasn't thinking as much in terms of possibility, as he thought it a given, considering the "hockey stick" of the technological progress. He was thinking in terms of the reasons and practicality of doing that. And he was happy he found it.

Considering that statistically sooner or later there'll be some catastrophic event that will wipe out the human life, either at Earth level or at cosmic level, the only way to preserve human civilization, would be "to create simulations that  are indistinguishable from  reality", that will run after human biological life got wiped out.

Considering that statistically it is likely that such an event already happened, and the likelihood that historically there could've been a civilization more advanced than we are (able "to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality"), he estimated the probability of these to not have happened to "one in billions".

I found his thinking remarkable, definitely out of the box, which explains the success of the endeavors he is involved in.

He wasn't futilely thinking about how to avoid the unavoidable, he was thinking in terms of how to deal with the unavoidable in the best way.

"Life is like a box of Rorschach inkblots. You never know what anybody's gonna see". Look at us! 

[inavalan]

I see a parallel between Cryonics

Cryonics (from Greek: κρύος kryos meaning 'cold') is the low-temperature freezing (usually at −196 °C or −320.8 °F or 77.1 K) and storage of a human corpse or severed head, with the speculative hope that resurrection may be possible in the future.

and getting the covid "vaccine". It is just at a different level of financial possibilities.

Imagine that the government would pay for Cryonics, even without a media hype campaign of fear, hope, coaxing into guilty feeling. There'd be hoards of volunteers. There'd be talk about inequitable access of the minorities, yada-yada. 

[Reefs]

Apr 16, 2021 13:53:08 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Apr 15, 2021 22:46:38 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Is life a video game? | Elon Musk | Code Conference 2016

One in billions not to be a simulation ... (?)




"... Either
 we're going to create simulations that
 are indistinguishable from
 reality, or civilization will cease to
 exist. Those are the two options."

I found interesting the angle Musk was thinking about the idea of a "simulated reality". He wasn't thinking as much in terms of possibility, as he thought it a given, considering the "hockey stick" of the technological progress. He was thinking in terms of the reasons and practicality of doing that. And he was happy he found it.

Considering that statistically sooner or later there'll be some catastrophic event that will wipe out the human life, either at Earth level or at cosmic level, the only way to preserve human civilization, would be "to create simulations that  are indistinguishable from  reality", that will run after human biological life got wiped out.

Considering that statistically it is likely that such an event already happened, and the likelihood that historically there could've been a civilization more advanced than we are (able "to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality"), he estimated the probability of these to not have happened to "one in billions".

I found his thinking remarkable, definitely out of the box, which explains the success of the endeavors he is involved in.

He wasn't futilely thinking about how to avoid the unavoidable, he was thinking in terms of how to deal with the unavoidable in the best way.

"Life is like a box of Rorschach inkblots. You never know what anybody's gonna see". Look at us! 

But isn't there some flawful logic there in what he is proposing? That virtual reality, an entire civilization in a virtual reality is totally dependent on the physical hardware that projects it and sustains it. And that hardware needs to run on something and someone needs to run it. There's an entire physical infrastructure to these synthetic virtual (non-physical) worlds. This reminds me of the common misconception that people think the internet is just this soup of data that is surrounding us in the ether which we are just magically tapping into with our wifi devices. People forget that the internet is nothing without the physical infrastructure that sustains it, the physical servers with physical hard drives that need a lot of electric power and the data that goes thru undersea cables from continent to continent. So once you cut those cables or switch of all power to those servers the internet is gone. So people often forget the infrastructure behind that virtual reality and how vulnerable this all is. It can be turned off with a flip of a switch. So I think what he is proposing is a lot more worrisome than some kind of cataclysm that can wipe out a civilization which he's projecting from an unknown past into an unknown future. The virtual realities these people get so excited about are infinitely more vulnerable than this planet. It's having things upside down, actually. Because in the real world, the non-physical sustains the physical. In the tech world, however, the physical sustains the non-physical (virtual). Which brings us back to the question about real and false. That which exists in its own right is real, that which doesn't exist in its own right is false. So in the actual world, the non-physical would be real and the physical false. In the virtual world, the physical would be real and the virtual be false. Now, what Musk is suggesting to treat them as equal. And that's flawful logic.

And when you think about it, what are these virtual technologies trying to emulate/simulate? It's the inner senses. So instead of using our god-given inner senses and explore other worlds, we get plugged into a machine that give us a lesser version of our natural senses (inner and outer) and makes us totally dependent on the hardware and software that runs these virtual worlds. Sounds like a terrible bargain to me. So why would someone think that's the coolest idea ever? maybe because they have no clue who they really are or they have a different agenda. IMO, it's a rather sad vision of the future what he's proposing there, having us fully dependent on technology. that's not upgrading or enhancing humans, it's downgrading and crippling humans, maybe even degrading humans by making them equivalent to a combination of machines or software.

[Reefs]

Apr 16, 2021 14:24:17 GMT -5 inavalan said:

I see a parallel between Cryonics

Cryonics (from Greek: κρύος kryos meaning 'cold') is the low-temperature freezing (usually at −196 °C or −320.8 °F or 77.1 K) and storage of a human corpse or severed head, with the speculative hope that resurrection may be possible in the future.

and getting the covid "vaccine". It is just at a different level of financial possibilities.

Imagine that the government would pay for Cryonics, even without a media hype campaign of fear, hope, coaxing into guilty feeling. There'd be hoards of volunteers. There'd be talk about inequitable access of the minorities, yada-yada. 

I think cryonics is more like an older, now obsolete version of transhumanism. Think about it, why would you want to freeze your body when you can just clone it, grow a perfectly new one? Since they think your identity is just a memory, which is stored in the brain, and since brain activity can be easily monitored and translated into bits and bytes, they think they can download the content of your memory (and therefore your entire identity, the disembodied you so to speak) onto a hard drive and then transfer it to a new body - non-human, human or hybrid. Also, in the process of copying memory, they think they can delete parts of your life story that you wished you wouldn't remember, like some traumatic experience as a child. And voila! You're a fresh new fully healthy body again plus with a squeaky clean and enhanced identity. Watch Replicas and you'll get the idea. It's a good movie, because it raises a lot of questions - technical, philosophical and ethical. Also, watch The Island, with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. Then think again about what Musk is suggesting. The proponents of transhumanism think that it will great better humans in the sense of enhanced capabilities and enhanced experiences. The critics of transhumanism think it will do the opposite, it will actually take the human component out of humans.

[Reefs]

Apr 16, 2021 8:21:05 GMT -5 andrew said:

Apr 16, 2021 7:48:42 GMT -5 Reefs said:

It's transhumanism, which has its roots in solipsism, i.e. a purely intellectual perspective of the world and life. So it's probably not particularly odd that most tech billionaires promote transhumanist ideals. And I'd assume that people who mostly live in their heads would find those ideals attractive or at least plausible. From the SR perspective, however, it's an extremely narrow way of experiencing life.

Here's an interesting article which sums up the transhumanist perspective, IMO:

Transhumanism’s Solipsistic Utopianism

Hollywood has been promoting transhumanism for a long time. There's an interesting movie with Keanu Reeves and Alice Eve, Replicas, which I think points to the actual goal of transhumanism. I can recommend watching it, not because I liked it but because it shows you the mindset we are dealing with here. IMO, the transhumanists have no idea what makes up a human being in its entirety. Essentially, their perspective is so narrowly centered around ego and intellect that it's almost immature. Which is a bit ironic because the goal of transhumanism is expansion of mind and consciousness. But since their approach and perspective is purely intellectual, they are naturally confusing mind with intellect and consciousness with mind. So the expansion they envision is just an expansion on this narrow band of experience that the intellect allows.

Yes. Transhumanism strikes me as materialism on steroids, and what strikes me as conspicuously absent is that there's no 'true' sense of what it means to 'be human'. Although discussions about what it is to 'be human' don't readily slot into non-dual teachings and talks, I think anyone that explores non-duality, in the end, should end up with a deep and true sense of what it means to 'be human' (though it doesn't have to be non-duality specifically, I think anyone that goes deep into general spirituality should come away with a deeper sense of what it means to 'be human').

It's also why many in the world that lean towards atheism...or agnosticism, could be swayed by transhumanism. I suspect it's harder to convince cultures that are more ingrained in spirituality, or religion.

Okay. I actually think we are drifting into pettifroggery, so if you move or delete, it's really okay.

Yes, a virtual reality is still the physical reality. And it is a world scaled down to the limits of the intellect. That's why it is devoid of any meaning or purpose, something that tends to be characteristic for humans. Which means in the end, these virtual worlds will prove to be incredibly unfulfilling, exactly like those movies that promote such ideas. I've watched a lot of these movies. And while intellectually stimulating, emotionally and especially spiritually I find them to be rather draining. But that's just me. Some others may see that differently. Prometheus with Charlize Theron is another interesting one. It's about the origins of the human species. And how they envision - from their materialistic perspective on steroids, as you say - meeting our maker(s) would look like.  Pathetic!

[inavalan]

Apr 16, 2021 22:09:38 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Apr 16, 2021 13:53:08 GMT -5 inavalan said:

I found interesting the angle Musk was thinking about the idea of a "simulated reality". He wasn't thinking as much in terms of possibility, as he thought it a given, considering the "hockey stick" of the technological progress. He was thinking in terms of the reasons and practicality of doing that. And he was happy he found it.

Considering that statistically sooner or later there'll be some catastrophic event that will wipe out the human life, either at Earth level or at cosmic level, the only way to preserve human civilization, would be "to create simulations that  are indistinguishable from  reality", that will run after human biological life got wiped out.

Considering that statistically it is likely that such an event already happened, and the likelihood that historically there could've been a civilization more advanced than we are (able "to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality"), he estimated the probability of these to not have happened to "one in billions".

I found his thinking remarkable, definitely out of the box, which explains the success of the endeavors he is involved in.

He wasn't futilely thinking about how to avoid the unavoidable, he was thinking in terms of how to deal with the unavoidable in the best way.

"Life is like a box of Rorschach inkblots. You never know what anybody's gonna see". Look at us! 

But isn't there some flawful logic there in what he is proposing? That virtual reality, an entire civilization in a virtual reality is totally dependent on the physical hardware that projects it and sustains it. And that hardware needs to run on something and someone needs to run it. There's an entire physical infrastructure to these synthetic virtual (non-physical) worlds. This reminds me of the common misconception that people think the internet is just this soup of data that is surrounding us in the ether which we are just magically tapping into with our wifi devices. People forget that the internet is nothing without the physical infrastructure that sustains it, the physical servers with physical hard drives that need a lot of electric power and the data that goes thru undersea cables from continent to continent. So once you cut those cables or switch of all power to those servers the internet is gone. So people often forget the infrastructure behind that virtual reality and how vulnerable this all is. It can be turned off with a flip of a switch. So I think what he is proposing is a lot more worrisome than some kind of cataclysm that can wipe out a civilization which he's projecting from an unknown past into an unknown future. The virtual realities these people get so excited about are infinitely more vulnerable than this planet. It's having things upside down, actually. Because in the real world, the non-physical sustains the physical. In the tech world, however, the physical sustains the non-physical (virtual). Which brings us back to the question about real and false. That which exists in its own right is real, that which doesn't exist in its own right is false. So in the actual world, the non-physical would be real and the physical false. In the virtual world, the physical would be real and the virtual be false. Now, what Musk is suggesting to treat them as equal. And that's flawful logic.

And when you think about it, what are these virtual technologies trying to emulate/simulate? It's the inner senses. So instead of using our god-given inner senses and explore other worlds, we get plugged into a machine that give us a lesser version of our natural senses (inner and outer) and makes us totally dependent on the hardware and software that runs these virtual worlds. Sounds like a terrible bargain to me. So why would someone think that's the coolest idea ever? maybe because they have no clue who they really are or they have a different agenda. IMO, it's a rather sad vision of the future what he's proposing there, having us fully dependent on technology. that's not upgrading or enhancing humans, it's downgrading and crippling humans, maybe even degrading humans by making them equivalent to a combination of machines or software.

I agree with your arguments.

It is just that for me, who neither like nor dislikes Musk, it was fascinating to see him looking for a solution to a big, existential problem, finding it (in his view), and being happy about it. At his level, he is even somebody who could push his idea further. I appreciated his out of the box thinking, and the practicality of not thinking to avoid something unavoidable, accepting it and trying to deal with it.

Surely, a solution as Musk suggested is outside of my sphere of interest, as I believe that each one of us already lives in a self-created reality. The problem of human civilization is a false problem in a multiverse which covers all probabilities.