(First Draft): Now that we have a foundational understanding that posits human centric perspectives as a (potential) anomaly of influence that drives humanity’s focus upon materiality as the absolute reality, we can begin to examine such anthropocentric “programming” within the context of simulation theory.
In doing so we must consider the warnings of Ancient philosophy specifically telling us not to use our material identity and its experiences to determine truth, because what is a philosophy supporting simulation theory if it isn’t a quest to understand “truth of reality”?
Whilst ancient philosophy dealt with a rudimentary idea of the material world being a flawed reflection of a higher divine reality, this was often expressed through allegories and metaphors that lacked the precise conceptual framework to fully articulate such an idea. This limitation obviously stemmed from the absence of modern technological concepts, though over the years these philosophies went through many iterations eventually becoming entwined with computers and thus the contemporaneous idea of simulation theory. It comes as no surprise given computers in part were literally developed around Descartes and his philosophies – many of which were found in his book Meditations – to answer his questions regarding machine level intelligence. Indeed philosophers like Pascal – who a programming language was named after – and Liebnez – who annoyed Newton when he claimed to have invented calculus before him – had hands to play in the development of the computer, but it is with Descartes where a proper foundational theory of computers as we know them today really started. Thus the man once again becomes the centre of our focus as he is the perfect candidate for the integration of philosophy with computer theory.
Whereas Descartes' Dream Scepticism highlights the subjective nature of perception and the fallibility of human consciousness in discerning truth from illusion, his Evil Demon argument – also known as the Evil Genius or Evil Deceiver argument – highlights the limitations of human cognition and the potential for biases to influence our understanding of reality. Together they offer valuable insights for evaluating anthropocentric and materialistic biases not only within science, but also within the field of simulation theory itself.
With the Evil Demon theory we find an evolution of the same Vedic/Orphic/Gnostic idea of an “evil higher force” that shapes man’s experience within materiality: Descartes imagines the possibility of an omnipotent and malevolent demon, capable of deceiving human senses and perceptions, thereby at once casting doubt on the reliability of his sensory experiences and the existence of an external world. This sceptical hypothesis challenges traditional notions of reality by suggesting that everything we perceive could potentially be an illusion created by this evil demon, which bears some obvious similarities with the idea Descartes was caught in an elaborate dream, as we have explored with his Dream scepticism argument. We can adapt this idea to Ancient philosophy and equate such a demon with the Asuras in the Vedic texts, the Titans of the Orphic beliefs and the Archons in Gnostic cosmogony.
Descartes used this thought experiment to explore the limits of human knowledge and the idea that obtaining certain knowledge is impossible – a field known as epistemology. By doubting everything that can be doubted, Descartes sought a foundation of certainty upon which to build knowledge, arriving at the conclusion that even if he is being deceived by a demon in regards to his external world of experience, he cannot doubt his own existence as a thinking being. This line of reasoning, along with his mind-body dualism, culminated in his renowned statement: "Cogito ergo sum," or "I think, therefore I am." This draws a notably clear inspiration from the Persian philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and his notion of the self found in his Flying/ Floating Man argument, which was probably a hand me down from the philosophies of Augustine and Aquinas Descartes was studying, rather than a direct pilfering.
Avicenna, upon being imprisoned with the Fardajan Castle in 1037 CE, wrote the philosophy, which centres around a person who suddenly comes into existence with no prior knowledge of the world, in which they find themselves suspended in the air, with no sensory input whatsoever – no sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell – and no awareness of their physical body, the external world, or any previous experiences. Essentially, they are a disembodied consciousness, whose self awareness and ability to think and introspect, Avicenna argues, affords them awareness of their own existence, independent of sensory perception. This awareness of their own consciousness thus gives them an understanding of identity that lies outside of materiality, what he deems as the “I” or “selfhood”.
Thus, like Descartes' Evil Demon, the Floating Man argument distinguishes between knowledge of the external world picked up through sensory perception and a more fundamental knowledge of the self picked up through self-awareness, the conclusion being that rejecting the existence of the soul is inconceivable, as it is necessary for existence, whereas rejecting the existence of the body is plausible, as it is not necessary to validate such existence. Hence, validating the existence of the soul without validating the existence of the body is entirely plausible. Thus Avicenna – a major contributor to mathematics and psychology – affirmed the existence of the soul independently of sensory experience and utilized this argument to defend the idea that it lacks “quantitative extension” whilst he set about trying to prove it’s existence. By synthesizing Aristotelian and Neoplatonic principles, Avicenna developed a syllogistic method of logic that provided an explanatory framework for human intellect and identity. According to this model, intellect operates through a hierarchical arrangement of metaphysical and material 'intelligibles,' with humans relying on sensory perception to grasp these intelligibles through syllogistic reasoning. Prophets, in Avicenna's view, attain the highest level of comprehension through direct apprehension rather than purely intellectual means. {missing part from less prophets} We can see here parallels with Plato's world of Forms, where Avicenna's adaptation underscores the intelligibles' existence beyond material identity within his own logical framework
It was for this reason that the Floating Man marked a shift toward subjective introspection as a method for establishing truth and knowledge, laying the groundwork which other philosophers like Descartes would eventually come to build upon.
Within Descartes’ mind-body dualism, we find a slight alteration of Avicenna’s idea, with the suggestion that the body and mind (soul) are two distinct substances, both created within the confines of material reality. On the one hand, the mind is immaterial and indivisible, while the body is material and extended. This leads Descartes to assert that a body free of mind – such as that of a dead body – is wholly conceptually possible for him, but when it came to a consciousness without body, he ran into philosophical problems due to the dualistic framework he was operating under. It becomes evident that with the Evil Demon hypothesis, Descartes was trying to reconcile Avicenna’s Floating Man – or a variation of it picked it up though his studies of Augustine/ Aquinus – within his mind-body dualism, but struggled to conceptualize it when he removed the body component from the equation. Funnily enough, It was with Descartes' mind body dualism that I was introduced to his philosophies as a child, which became an integral part of learning about the metaphysical nature of consciousness, as such an introduction coincided with my persistent wake induced lucid dreaming experiences.
Yet, for me, Descartes' problem of conceiving of mind without body had already been solved before I had even come across his concept: as a proficient wake induced lucid dreamer I had a very good idea of what “mind without body” felt like. This was something by that point I had come to take for granted, though at such a young age I did not understand the profound implications of what my experiences suggested: that I was, several times, a week leaving my body and its sensors behind in the material world and becoming the very floating man Avicenna envisioned within the dream world. Thus I pose the question: what is wake induced lucid dreaming if it is not the observation of and interaction with a world outside of a body and thus a world outside of materiality?
This gets back to the argument that frames Descartes' philosophies within the context of simulation theory suggesting the mind could be seen as the observer or experiencer within the simulation, while the body represents the simulated avatar or interface through which the mind interacts with the simulated environment. Dreams, by extension are a perfect medium for discussing simulation theory because they are, at their core, simulations of experience. So now we should have an understanding as to why Descartes' philosophies are so important when it comes to the discussion of simulation theory: they provide a rich philosophical environment where dreams, computers and the idea of sensory deception becomes entwined within an environment conducive to the practical exploration of their concepts. Interestingly, it was during his stay in Ulm in 1619 that Descartes' had 3 dreams that he claimed instilled within him a divine inspiration that set the man on a path to challenge existing knowledge and develop new methods of inquiry. Kind of like what I am doing with this book.
The evil demon argument was eventually expanded upon by Hilary Putnam in his Bran in a Vat argument, who used it to challenge the idea that words and concepts are determined by factors external to the individual’s mind – what is known as semantic externalism. Rearranging the Evil Demon hypothesis to instead suggest a brain floating in a vat full of nutrient fluids that is fed false sensory data by a super computer it is connected to – supposed to have been made by a mad scientist –, Putnam argued that even if an individual's experiences were entirely simulated, the meanings of their words and concepts would remain tied to the external (physical) world in which those concepts were originally grounded. This was directly in contrast to Descartes' exploration of epistemic doubt, although it is important to note that both still employ a measure of radical scepticism that postulates the idea of deception when it comes to the reliability of using sensory perception to acquire knowledge of our external world.
To simplify it, we can that say that as the brain in a vat has the same impulses as it would if housed in a skull, which are the only way of interacting with its environment, then it isn’t possible to tell – from the brain’s perspective – if it is in a skull or in a vat. This leads to a person’s beliefs being true in the first case, and false in the latter, but as one cannot ever be sure if they are in a brain in a vat or not, then one cannot know which of the two is correct. Putnam’s semantic externalism gives the problem that the words “I am a brain in vat” are created concepts within the vat by the supercomputer, and thus cannot refer to the actual vat that is assumed to house the brain, which would be something completely different and outside of the perceptual understanding of said brain.
Like Descartes with his evil demon hypothesis, Putnam was trying to establish some form of knowledge or understanding beyond the self. He eventually argued that one cannot possibly be a brain in a vat, based on his semantic externalism argument. Anthony Brueckner, amongst others, then countered this by suggesting Putnam used disquotation to arrive at his conclusion, essentially stating that his semantic externalism did not provide enough information to make such a determination.
The concept of the Brain in a Vat evolved over time into various iterations, including the braino/experience/hallucination machine, where it became a counterargument to ethical hedonism; the suggestion that pleasure or happiness is the highest good and the ultimate aim of human life, an idea tracing back to the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. Robert Nozick, in his book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" (1974), used the idea of the simulated experience machine to probe into the essence of happiness and its capacity to truly enrich human lives. Nozick suggests that if the ultimate objective is pleasure maximization, the experience machine leads us to pursue those experiences that offer the greater amount of pleasure, whilst rejecting those that offer a lesser amount. Nozick also gives a set of rationales that leads one to decidenot to plug in:
Firstly, humans inherently seek active engagement in certain activities rather than passive experiences alone. The desire for particular experiences originates from our fundamental inclination to actively participate in corresponding actions or thoughts. Secondly, we aspire to embody specific traits and characteristics that define our identity. However, the experience machine reduces individuals to passive entities devoid of distinctive traits or qualities, stripping away any genuine essence of personality or character. Thirdly, plugging into the machine confines us within a fabricated reality constructed by humans, limiting our experiences to those artificially created and detached from any authentic connection to a deeper reality.
Furthermore, other philosophers have extended arguments against connecting to the experience machine, highlighting the human tendency to resist change, particularly when confronted with the notion of being manipulated by wires, a manifestation of the status quo bias. Additionally, they underscore the loss of genuine relationships resulting from plugging in, as individuals would be disconnected from their real family and friends, albeit unknowingly. Moreover, they argue that connecting to the machine blurs the concept of free will, complicating the distinction between voluntary actions and programmed experiences. Lastly, past experiences with technological failures have instilled a deep-seated distrust in machines, further fuelling scepticism about the reliability and safety of the experience machine. The last point can be used to pose an ethical question regarding a scenario in which the experience machine malfunctions and “traps” it’s user in a simulated environment: do the programmers continue to let the user’s simulated experiences play out, or do they forcibly eject them against their will? Do they allow them to believe in the realness of the simulated family and friendships they’ve cultivated in the simulation, or destroy this illusion on the basis of bringing them back to their family in the real world? We can start to see that Nozick’s experience machine dilemma is beginning to blur the lines of the practicality of free will.
Nick Bostrom then went on to develop these arguments even further by replacing the evil demon/ mad scientist/ experience machine programmers with an advanced post human civilisation who had a penchant for running ancestor simulations. Bostrom evidently took inspiration from more recent technological advances to update the core concepts of these older arguments: he observes the rapid progression of technology in our current age and makes an assessment based on the idea that, if given enough time to evolve, computers will eventually get to a point where they are able to run such simulations of the universe. His reasoning then deduces that if that were the case, then we may already be in such a simulation. Bostrom introduces the idea that consciousness can be placed on a substrate that is not biological, and uses this idea to then determine energetic, processing and resource constraints based on known theories of computational operation. Bostrom then summarises his finding in a trilemma that suggests either one of three suppositions must be true:
1. Humans will go extinct before reaching a post human (techno-biologically enhanced) stage
2. Any such civilisation is extremely unlikely to bother running simulations of their ancestry
3. It is highly likely we are living in a simulation.
Bostrom then employs mathematic probability to test his hypothesis to show how he arrives at his trilemma.
Norman Swazo critically evaluates Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis, suggesting that is based more on speculation rather than it is backed by scientific enquiry. Swazo uses accounts from people like Heidegger, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman and Dreyfus to formulate an argument that challenges its epistemological, anthropocentric, metaphysical, and ethical foundations, highlighting the speculative and potentially problematic nature of accepting the hypothesis without careful scrutiny and empirical evidence. Whilst arguing that Bostrom’s simulation theory is too anthropocentrically orientated in its speculations, Swazo fails to take into account that so is the very scientific avenue he is using to critically examine it: by using scientific inquiry to examine Bostrom's hypothesis, Swazo is operating within a framework that is itself influenced by human perspectives and biases. Swazo's own reliance on testimonies from figures like Heidegger, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, and Dreyfus, while not necessarily invalid, can be also seen as somewhat inconsistent with his demand for empirical validation.
This underscores the importance of properly understanding agency when it comes to ancient philosophy. Without considering that our agency is programmed towards anthropocentrism we distort the very faculties about the world these philosophies were trying to convey simply by assuming humans as the focal point of conscious experience. For any of these philosophies to be truly compatible with reality, we’d have to negate the experience of all sentient and conscious species. This exposes obvious weaknesses in all of the above philsophies .
1. Descartes can no longer rely on the idea it is just him being simulated. 2. Putnam can no longer rely on human language as focal point for his argument. Replacinig his sementic externalism with a universal language equivalent that is “updated through sensory perception” for all creatures, highlights this point.3. Nozick can no longer be sure it is just human interpretations of pleasure we would seek. 4. Bostrom can no longer rely on a civilisation that isn’t inherently human to be the perpetrators of the simulation, and therefore base its construction on human motivations or technological capabilties. One could argue that any animal could reach such a stage of development if given enough time.
We can start to see that we've allowed biases to shape our very philosophies and sciences, distorting our perception of reality by confining it to the human experience. To gain a more accurate understanding, we must consider the perspectives of all conscious beings, not just our own. By reevaluating concepts like the evil demon or brain in a vat hypothesis, we can mitigate anthropocentric bias: Instead of framing simulations solely around human perception, we should acknowledge the role of all living beings in shaping our reality.
We can analyse the experience of a wake induced lucid dream in regards to agency and what exactly the observable identity is during such an experience. Then we can ask the question “is one still human when they are consciously aware they are dreaming,” given that humanistic views are inherently attached to physical bodies and thus a physical, material identity? Or does the experience of a wake induced lucid dream suggest an identity that lies outside of materiality? We can then use logic to suggest a commonality of identity shared by all creatures during this state: even with unconscious dreaming all creatures are reduced beyond their animalistic make up to a “neutral observer” status. What then is the actual difference in consciousness between an animal and a human both engaging in wake induced lucid dreaming?
We can go one further and consider the different sizes of conscious creatures that coinhabit our planet. From elephants to ants, there is an abundance of various sizes when it comes to the physical bodies housing what appears to be some form of consciousness. Now suppose that we are an ant observing the world around us: it would be fundamentally different to the world a human may observe due to the scaling down of consciousness to a smaller “size” (even though that size isn’t readily quantifiable, and is determined by some sort of unknown boundaries imposed by the body). Humans from their perspective use measurements that are defined through their perception at human consciousness scale. Take for example the distance between two points equalling a standard unit of measurement, the metre. If we scale this down to our ant, the ant may perceive the same distance between two points, but from a smaller scale of consciousness. This begs the question: is the distance between the two perceived points still a metre, or is it now something smaller, closer to a millimetre? Is our perception of space actually a sufficient representation or is it an illusion propegated by the current scale of our consciousness?If we were to hypothetically suppose a creature existing at the quantum scale that lives on the surface of an atom like we humans live on the surface of a planet, we would find a completely different perception of reality. If such a creature existed, it would likely perceive and interact with reality in ways that are incomprehensible to us because at the quantum level, the laws of physics operate very differently from those at macroscopic scales. Quantum phenomena such as superposition and entanglement would likely be fundamental aspects of this creature's reality. Such a difference of perception could also be suggested for large scale consciousness at the macroscopic end of the spectrum. If we are talking in the sense of universality of consciousness, then logic tells us that it should be scalable in such a fashion.
Yet, if you take consciousness away from all of it, these scales of size become meaningless. The vastness of the universe simply becomes an illusion perpetrated by our human nature. The distance between two planets, for example, becomes fundamentally the same as the distance between two atoms. This, once again challenges the anthropocentric bias inherent in our scientific methodologies of understanding the universe. The only thing that stops us from believing consciousness is scalable in this way is the idea our brain carries a certain complexity of neurological pathways that instils it with a superiority of intelligence over other species. Yet again we find a level of hypocrisy by not considering larger creatures with larger brains as having the same level of intelligence as us. We could argue the ability to develop technology for our case of intelligence – something that required the anomaly of our evolution –, but to do so we would first have to ignore the massive cost to our environment such technological progression comes with. So if consciousness is scalable could it therefore not occupy the smallest particles in the universe as well as the largest objects? Is it really influenced by processes in the brain, or is it actually responsible for these processes arising to begin with?
By reducing consciousness to a common neutral ground in this way, we can suppose then, that rather than a human brain being in a physical vat, a neutral consciousness being held in a metaphysical “container” that injects it with various animalistic experiences within the materialistic "simulated” environment, by scaling it to the size of various different creature bodies. We can then ask “at what point does this scalabilty of consciousness finish,” and begin to hypothesise atomic and planetary scale consciousness. We don’t even have to violate the relationship between consciousness and biological processes in the brain: if consciousness were indeed scalable to the atomic world then the biological system being influenced by the consciousness component inherent within its atomic makeup is just as permissible.
By considering the perspectives of all creatures, we can go back and address Descartes' challenge of understanding mind without body and challenge Putnam's linguistic arguments, as animal communication encompasses more than vocal sounds. Through wake-induced lucid dreaming, we can then question whether our consciousness is being misled into identifying with a human experience.
This opens up a can of worms, because – as we have explored in other chapters – the only references to reality we have are the interpretations of it through human level perception. From the realms of philosophy – even those of Ancient philosophy – to the sciences, religious doctrines to cultural narratives, the human experience serves as the primary reference point for interpreting the world around us. This anthropocentric bias not only shapes our perceptions of reality but also influences the development of belief systems that underpin our understanding of existence often relegating the experiences of animals as “spiritually inferior” in the process. Such a disjunction only serves as further evidence to the query of whether or not we have been deceived into believing we are human. After all, it is much more comforting to suppose that in death our consciousness meets up with past expired family members and friends, rather than believe it returns to a neutrally energetic state of existence. Yet which is more logical, given what we know about the physical universe?
We can now start to rearrange some other well known philosophies to explore the concept even further. ” By taking a page out of the existentialist and solipsist handbook, we can suppose that reality is inherently dependant upon conscious observers in the realm of experience that defines its realness.
We can use Berkley’s quandary “if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound’ and reform it to ask “if there are no conscious entities in the in the physical universe to experience it, is it even still real?”: If we wipe out all conscious and sentient life in the universe at once, do observed quantum phenomena still stay in tact? We can then go on to use a variation of Wheeler’s participatory anthropic principle – the idea the universe is finely tuned for conscious observers – to consider that there must be some sort of threshold of consciousnesses within the universe at any given time for its realness to become viable.
Logic would tell us that the lowest possible threshold of realness would be equal to 1: that is, one singular conscious entity being inside of this universe observing it to make it definitively real. We can subsequently apply this same method of thinking to a wake induced lucid dreaming experience: for a wake induced lucid dream to be real it only needs 1 observing consciousness at any given time. Therefore, we can deduce that the experience of a wake induced lucid dream cannot be discounted as being “not real”, going by the same standard of determination we use for materiality. To argue against the subjectivity of the wake induced lucid dreaming world, therefore, is to argue against the subjective nature of the material world: either both are real, or neither are.
The idea that one is being deceived into believing they are human then moves to the question of “am I being deceived into believing the material world is real?
This brings us full circle back to those Ancient philosophies which suggested the material world as being an illusory false world of a higher world of creation. Yet I now have two identities of experience to compare with one another to make a more informed decision on which one is more correct. Am I this human being that is seemingly consciously disconnected from all creatures of divine creation through his apparently superior brain that seems to lack an understanding of its place in the universe, or am I this entity of consciousness seemingly the same as all of them having an experience of being human whilst they are having the experience of being animal? Does this mean animals have a better understanding of their spiritual identity because they haven’t forsaken it for the pursuit of materialistic pleasures and illusions like money or virtual reality?
But there isa problem: by the time I gain some form of conscious understanding of this identity within the material world, it has already been heavily influenced into believing it is spiritually superior to all other beings I share the planet with without me even knowing, but never more superior than those pieces of paper I am taught to worship. Yet when it comes to defining this spirituality, no one seems to be able to give me definitive answer as to what exactly it is that is any more explanatory than my idea that consciousness is all of neutral quality when wake induced lucid dreaming. Once again spirituality is relegated to that same vagueness of what apparently happens to consciousness at death, the experts of which who would tell me such stories can’t even remain conscious during a dream. Any avenue of enquiry about where I go when I die is met with opposing viewpoints, depending on where it is I seek this validation. To subscribe to any one I must therefore enter into competition with my fellow man, which is something I really do not care to entertain. What is more, these characters seemed compelled to try and convince me that the identity of consciousness I obtain outside of this madness is not real, whilst at the same time admitting they do not know what consciousness actually is. I am expected to believe that all the subjective experiences and memories of my existence as this consciousness to be had in this metaphysical place are figments of my imagination, whilst at the same time surrendering to the idea that those experiences of waking reality cannot also be “products of my imagination”. But logic doesn’t allow me to dismiss my experience of the metaphysical reality that easily. By invoking the Boltzman Brain hypothesis I can just as easily argue against these experts’ point. The Boltzman Brain hypothesis suggests that, according to the laws of thermodynamics, highly organized structures like brains (or in this case, disembodied consciousness) could spontaneously arise from random fluctuations in the universe. This challenges the notion of a reality governed solely by deterministic physical laws.If we compare wake induced lucid dreaming with the Bolztman brain, we can see that both concepts highlight the fundamental role of consciousness in shaping subjective experiences. With Boltzmann brains, the perceived reality arises solely from the subjective experiences of the brain itself, without any external stimuli. Whereas within wake-induced lucid dreaming, individuals maintain consciousness while transitioning into the dream state, where they actively shape and participate in the dream reality. This suggests that consciousness plays a crucial role in constructing our subjective experiences, even in the absence of external sensory input.
I can then examine my ability to form seemingly vivid and real dreamscape environments generated entirely by my own consciousnessas it bypasses all external sensory input and engagement in physical reality and reverse the Boltzman brain scenario.
This arrives me at the conclusion that a physical universe environment forming around me from my own consciousness holds no fundamental difference to a dream environment forming around my consciousness whilst engaged in a wake induced lucid dream. Thus, by reversing the Boltzman brain I have not only established a theoretical basis for the “illusion of the physical universe” I have given a very solid reason to consider the scenario that we are conscious entities which have been tricked into believing they are human. Does consciousness really arise from physical processes in the Brain, or does the Boltzman consciousness materialise the brain and the universe it resides in and use it as a receiving avatar for consciousness, replete with supposed memories of times previous to upon awakening, and a complete material identity? We can now get back to Descartes ponderment as to whether or not he was actually dreaming when he thought he was awake. Is yesterday even real, or is it a false memory implanted every time I enter sleep? If I am implanted with false memories, then does this suggest I am also implanted with a false identity? But then if my memories of material identity cannot be false, can the same also be said for the memories of my sense of identity I acquire outside of materiality during a wake induced lucid dream? Am I even waking up when I awaken into materiality, or am I really falling into some kind of a metaphysical slumber that perpetuates the illusion of human identity I am expected to believe is really me?I can now take my two different experiences of identity – the material identity and the metaphysical identity experienced during a wake induced lucid dream – and apply Berkeley’s sock problem to explore them both further. In the thought experiment, Berkeley ponders whether the idea that patching a hole in a sock truly means that sock is still the same “thing” as what it was prior to it bearing a hole. He wonders if more and more holes appear in his sock over time, that lead to more and more patches being sewn into it to the point that no original part of the sock’s material is now present, then is it really the same sock. This leads Berkley to conclude there is some sort of abstract “thing” or definition beyond the sock’s material form which we ascribe to being “the sock”, regardless of its material composition. This is an obvious rearrangement of Plutarch’s ship of Theseus, where the sock was originally a ship that had each part of its rotting wood replaced piece by piece over time, in which the same question was asked; if all the boards were eventually replaced was the ship still the ship of Theseus or was it something else? Applying the ship of Theseus/ Sock of Berkley to consciousness, we can take the seemingly neutral form of it experienced during a wake induced lucid dream, use this as a probable reference point for what our consciousness was at birth, and ask ourselves if our experiences in life acts as Berkely’s sock patches, transforming us into something different but which we still find abstract definition in being “us” or our “self”. Are we still the same “thing” we were born as or has that that thing been patched away through materialistic reinforcement?So now there is an elephant in the room that must be addressed, and that lies in humanity’s obsessions with illusions. I can extend this beyond just mere virtual realities and money to consider the ideological frameworks that dominate societies – socialism, communism, fascism, to name a few. Built upon abstract notions of societal organization and collective identity, these systems often prioritise the perpetuation of the ideology itself over the well-being of the individuals who live under it. In the pursuit of ideological purity, individuals are subjugated, dissent is suppressed, and the human experience is sacrificed at the altar of ideological supremacy. Even Plato had a hard time considering people anything but “property of the state” we he penned his Republic, which is where many of these ideas originated. We can see a perverted consolidation of power in which the spiritual essence of man is once again distilled out of the equation for the sake of an unseen force that seems to feed off such power, and propagate it through a system of occult memetics.
How can we reconcile the prevalence of such ideological illusions with the notion of a genuine understanding of reality? If humanity is willing to subjugate individual experiences and perpetuate such illusions for the sake of ideological adherence, what does this say about the validity of our perceptions and beliefs? More importantly, how can I be sure that any of these beliefs about our eschatology are more than just elaborate fictons?
It’s getting harder and harder to simply trust the words of those who automatically think and act according to the beat of their anthropocentrism – those who believe we were created to worship bits of paper to such an unhealthy degree – and try to tell me my metaphysical identity is not real, for these ideological illusions, like all illusions, serve to obscure the truth and manipulate perception. They wield immense power over our collective consciousness, shaping our understanding of reality and defining the boundaries of acceptable thought.
If I critically examine the role of these ideological systems in, I can begin to confront the uncomfortable truth that humanity’s obsession with illusions extends far beyond individual desires and pursuits: it is very obviously prevalent within every aspect of society, from the economic structures we operate within to the political systems that govern us, even to the point of being embedded within our leisures and how we retrieve information about the world around us.
Upon closer examination, I may begin to question the origins of this pervasive bias. Is it merely a product of human cognition and cultural conditioning, or could there be an external force, alien to our understanding of reality and identity who is shaping us towards this outcome? Yet the widespread prevalence of this pervasive bias across diverse cultures and historical epochs is evidently emblematic of such a deliberate influence that is seemingly, and albeit deliberately, perpetuating a particular narrative of human existence that is inherently divisive and incompatible within the context of greater spiritual universality. This would solve our question of humans being somewhat of an evolutionary anomaly when it comes to their psychological complexes, and why we seem stuck in direct conflict with one another over our beliefs. From religious cosmologies that place humanity at the centre of creation to scientific paradigms that prioritize human observations and measurements, the fingerprints of this alien force seem to be all too obvious, when it comes to discerning them in the fabric of our collective understanding.And therein a paradox becomes evident: empirical investigation alone cannot be considered sufficient enough to provide a proper determination into the nature of such a force if our sciences were deliberately manipulated by it to overlook the world from which it originates.
This gets to the question of the metaphysical world embedded in Ancient philosophies on the soul, and how it was not only ignored when it came to the subject of deriving empirical investigation, but also has been systematically suppressed throughout the ages. One doesn’t have to look very far to find strong evidence of violent opposition to those who had an understanding of the metaphysical world, and who tried relaying this through their teachings: the persecution of the Gnostics is a stark illustration of the lengths to which orthodoxy has gone to suppress alternative viewpoints. As we have explored, figures like Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus led deliberate campaigns aimed at eradicating Gnostic beliefs, branding them as heretical and seeking to extinguish their doctrines, which we wouldn’t have gained an unbiased understanding of if someone hadn’t decided to hide them in a clay jar in Nag Hammardi. But it didn’t stop at the Gnostics: similar campaigns have reverberated through history, manifesting in various forms of oppression. Take the witch hunts, for example, which targeted not only those accused of witchcraft but also anyone perceived as deviating from established religious norms and put them to death at the stake. Again during medieval times, Alchemical pursuits were viewed as challenging religious and scientific dogma, and similarly stifled, depriving seekers of knowledge from exploring the mystical and transformative aspects of nature. We also find an echo of the suppression in the way Colonial powers imposed their own religious and cultural frameworks on the indigenous peoples they were conquering, erasing their traditional spiritual practices and beliefs in theprocess. The Native American’s believed that it was a type of psychic virus that was responsible; one that engorged itself within the psyche of man and inflated his sense of selfishness, whlst eradicating all sense of empathy, what they called the “wetiko”.The inquisitions and heresy trials were another example where the ruthless suppression of dissent, was epitomized by punishing those who dared to question religious orthodoxy. Even during the Renaissance, a period celebrated for its intellectual flourishing, censorship stifled unconventional ideas, preventing the free exchange of knowledge and stagnating innovation.
In this climate of repression, attempts to bridge disparate ideologies, such as Pico della Mirandola's endeavor to integrate Kabbalistic thought into Christian theology, were also met with fierce resistance. The Pope's threat to condemn Pico as a heretic unless he renounced his proposal only serves to exemplify the entrenched power dynamics that sought to maintain doctrinal purity at all costs. Pico's mentor, Marsino, faced similar censure for his efforts to revive the Platonic academy in Florence: a center for philosophical inquiry that challenged prevailing religious doctrines. The lasting affects of this stigmatisation is still noticeable in the way seekers of the metaphysical truths of reality are often branded as worshippers of the devil/satan by religious fundamentalists, simply on account of their deep desire to understand the soul, and the ignorance propagated by the above mentioned campaigns. The question must be asked as to why such groups have been so hellbent on stopping man from studying the philosophy of the soul, when their own ideologies have foundations built upon these very philosophies. Are they really proponents of God, or is it more they are dancing to the marionette strings of those whose goal it is to suppress the spiritual nature of man, and his coming into the folds of knowledge of his divine status?
It is a pity man has developed a Turing test to test whether or not his Artificial Intelligence exhibits human level intelligence, but has no comparable system by which to measure his spiritual aptitude. This only serves to highlight the idea that his priorities lie in perpetual illusions. If only our ideological systems were built from a vantage point that removed humans from the apparent center by which all universal and cosmological laws revolve around, and sought to take a more humble approach.
What we need then is a systematic method of enquiry that does away with such anthropocentrically orientated viewpoints that are potentially part of the manipulation.
Comments