Comment

Comment on Mathematics disproves Matrix theory, says reality isn’t simulation

No it is proof that it is true because a system that does not have the data to create an experience cannot create the experience.

I am 100% saying the body is a computer with sensory attachments I have I jdea where you go the things about peripheral and central nervous system from.

Nowhere am I claiming that we can’t have shared experiences in fact I have been telling you the opposite.

What I am claiming is a quote coming from the researcher that made lucid dreaming well known from a lab setting, Stephen laberge.

I am in no way saying the only experience we have as individuals is only our own, since detecting outside information with sensory organs means we are detecting information outside of us which is coming from other people or objects for example.

I think what this is suggesting in its furthest extent is that what makes us function is far from being understood and that the reality is something we aren’t capable of understanding because it exists outside of our set of sensory input unless we can use tools to collapse information to without our range of sensory input.

Your link suggests you have no idea what point I have been making this whole time.

The point I am closest to making is the same one that the Tibetan buddhists are suggesting which is the non dual reality of experiencing things through the lens of perception.

source

Sort:hotnew top

TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

No it is proof that it is true because a system that does not have the data to create an experience cannot create the experience.

You claimed that dreams were unconstrained by sensory input… A limitation caused by the lack of sensory input is a natural constraint.

am 100% saying the body is a computer with sensory attachments I have no idea where you go the things about peripheral and central nervous system from.

Cognitive science? The brain and peripheral nervous system develop and act together. You cannot have one without the other, and if you damage one you damage the other. There is no natural or logical delineation from sensory input organs and the brain. A lot of the processing, especially from reactive functions don’t even require the brain, and are handled by just the spinal cord.

The idea that the body is a computer with sensory attachments is outdated. Our metal and physical development is a reaction of us engaging with our environment on a physical level.

reality is something we aren’t capable of understanding because it exists outside of our set of sensory input unless we can use tools to collapse information to within our range of sensory input.

I would say that reality consisist of what we can engage with in either a physical or metaphysical way. If it’s simply something that we can’t either mentally or physically interact with, then it is definitionally unimportant.

Tibetan buddhists are suggesting which is the non dual reality of experiencing things through the lens of perception.

While I accept a dualistic version of reality, I propose that perception alone is not what determines reality. I think embodied cognition gives us a much more accurate depiction of reality we engage with.

For example, without a body what is a bicycle? Through just pure observation alone, it is nothing but a chunk of odly shaped metal and plastic. It is our physical interaction with the bicycle that gives it its true meaning.

Reality is not just what we observe, it is what we interact with on a physical level.

source
- confuser@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Good luck trying to understood this
  
  source
  - TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Great rebuttal…really proves you know what you’re trying to talk about!
    
    source
    confuser@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Lol that is a funny autocorrect, but yeah, I’m done here
    
    source
    -> View More Comments