Do we live in a Matrix – Is Matter a virtual Simulation?

Originally Posted by Siemens

I do not differentiate between the "ego" and the "I" - or between ego and consciousness of self. By my understanding the ego or I exists even when we are not incarnated because it emerges from the self-understanding of the energetic structure, which I am. We, as energetic structures, can think and feel even if when we do not participate in a simulation.

When we are in the beyond we might have the option to merge in one unity. But it is still possible to segregate yourself, as one energetic structure, from other energetic structures. This segregation is what generates individuality, I, or ego - even outside the virtual, physical world.


Okay, this is in essence how I see it. But...


... I don’t understand what leads you to this conclusion:

I mean WHY DO YOU NEED A BRAIN TO EXPERIENCE TO EGO?
Thinking happens in the “energetic structure” that generates our conscious experience. You agreed that we are the “energetic structure” and that it is visualizing all we perceive as matter. The visualization follows only that rules we collectively agreed on – in order to have a consistent reality.

So, do you think that the reason why we would need the brain to experience the ego is just because we defined it as a rule that we would need a brain to think? If not, I cannot make head or tail of it.


Earlier you said:

Why and how should it be that the perception and movement of that virtual matter cause “that the mind, ego, thoughts, and feelings, arises”. Imaging we all were blind and nobody had ever seen a brain, so there is no perception and visulaization of a brain. Would this mean that we were unable to think?


The problem with this metaphor is that you tacitly assumed that there is a dance between two instances. Who says that two are needed for the dance? Can’t one dance alone? By my understanding only the energetic structure dances (thinks). The virtual brain is just the mirror image that reflects the dance (of one person) in a completely passive way.

Clear what I mean?

FYI, my time available for posting is going to become a good bit less soon, so if I fail to respond or take a long time, that is why.


I do differentiate between the ego and the underlying "I" so that may be why we seem to keep missing each other on that topic. Perhaps I should not be differentiating but it does seem to me that there had to be an "I" present at birth that gradually became aware of and adopted the ego as it developed. That said, consciousness is not aware of that "I" at birth, so is it really an "I"? We are only aware of the existence of this "I" as an entity indirectly, as the "entity" that must be there to be aware of the other "forms". I don't know if consciousness could become aware of itself without creating some sort of virtual construct to represent itself, but in this present "human life" context, creating a brain/body/and ego is the method it uses to do this.

In order to experience life as life, we must have death. Intellectually, I can see through that illusion and know that death is just an illusion, yet there is still a part of me in my brain/subconscious that feels that I am alive, struggles to stay that way, suffers, and fears death. These are ingredients to the life experience. To define life my yin needs a yang, I must feel death as real, otherwise there is just existence, which is not wrong or bad, but it is not "life". Having a brain from which I experience thought arising, helps to preserve this life illusion, makes it real and consequential. So I think that may in fact be one reason this life experience has such a rule, to experience thought, which we so automatically feel as us, we see them coming from brains, and we see it ending or being altered when brains die or are injured. But I also think that thought as we know it in life is a very limited form of knowing (by design). When one hears accounts of NDEs, they often struggle to explain the concept of direct knowing, absent of thought. They struggle to explain with words (a way to verbally convey thoughts from them to you) something that is beyond thoughts. So perhaps, we are again missing each other here because of what we mean when we use the word "thought". Imagine you were born blind, deaf, and with no nerve fibers that registered touch or smell, or even taste (no senses), yet modern medicine would keep you fed and alive. How would your brain create the world within in which you would live your life. What would "thoughts" be like if you never had the chance to learn language? How would it visualize if it never had vision?

I think consciousness uses the virtual matter to cause “the mind, ego, thoughts, and feelings" to arise, so it has them to be aware of and experience. These things are not strictly speaking "physical" or "matter" things, but it is through the relationships of the virtual matter as it moves (changes) that these things arise so consciousness can become conscious of them. Whether and how it could do so without the forms, I don't know, but I can't visualize how. Perhaps also we are missing each other through the word "visualization". We don't need to visualize a "physical brain" to have thought and perceptions. We only started connecting this with the thoughts when we realized that affecting the brain affects our thoughts. Before that we just had this sense of an "I" being within the body.

Yes, the two dancers are really just one. In fact all the dancing forms are really just one, they are all created within and by my consciousness. It is we who are Lord Shiva. Even now I am dancing with my creation of you in these posts. If you have a separate existence outside of my consciousness from which the information I use to create you comes, I can't ever really prove this to myself. I must always take that information (whether from within or somehow from beyond my consciousness) and spin it into a "you", an "other", within my own consciousness, and this is what I interact with. Which is why I said in a different post that my "You", is always more "me" then it is "you", regardless of whether you have a separate existence or not. Everything within our consciousness, is our creation, our universe within. The "I" I feel I am at the moment is just one of those creations, whatever the underlying "I" is I don't know how I could ever actual know, as "I" always creates a form or entity to become aware of and says that is "I". The subject "I" always creates on object "I" to represent itself. The one always separates into two when becoming aware of itself. I don't know how it could get around this.

Originally Posted by Siemens

I do not differentiate between the "ego" and the "I" - or between ego and consciousness of self. By my understanding the ego or I exists even when we are not incarnated because it emerges from the self-understanding of the energetic structure, which I am. We, as energetic structures, can think and feel even if when we do not participate in a simulation.

Welcome to the Matrix, my old fruity pop.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I think what you're talking about is more of a transfer of energy as the signal changes the state of the antenna which then sends a signal down the wires, so the original signal is unchanged itself but causes changes.

It's an analogy. What I am talking about is a transfer of information from the quantum field into my consciousness as my consciousness renders that information (through observation... in a larger sense) into a virtual construct of reality. The quantum field is outside of spacetime. Spacetime arises within consciousness along with the other aspects of the created reality. The quantum field is not a physical field, it is a mathematical ?thing? which consciousness uses (selectively) to draw information (the signal) from and render its created reality on the screen of its own mind.

Then again in our own Universe even the outer planets of our solar system were there before we became conscious of them, which seems to be the way round that it works in the realms of form. Astronomers saw the gravitational effects of the planets before they saw the planets themselves. Often the theories sound great but at the moment they're mathematical constructs, so isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Well, that is a matter of ones point of view. Einstein is famous for saying he liked to believe the moon is there even when he was not looking. But what does it mean to say the moon is there or "exists"? If the solar system existed as a virtual reality program within the computer that one could call up and put on the goggles at any time, and explore those planets or just their gravitational relationships at any time they wished, would one say that solar system exists when the goggles are lying on the coffee table turned off. The computer program has all the mathematical relationships and data to construct that solar system for you, at any level of detail, at any point in time, stored within even when it is not being used. I can turn it on and see Neptune, or I can turn it on and only see the effects of its gravitational warping of the computer generated virtual spacetime. So, does the moon exist when you are not using the VR simulation program? Does it "exist" even when you are? Does any thing "exist" when consciousness is not conscious of it?

I can't help but wonder at how a sceintist can come up with some of the quotes he has, it's as though there are two or three opposing trains of thought in his head at the same time.

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” - Niels Bohr

But perhaps that's why we chose to forget, so that we could rediscover the Universe again, for the first time.

Perhaps, but if so, I can't recall choosing to forget .

At any rate my time available for posting is getting shorter. If it seems to you that I take a long time in responding to your response (should it exist), you can blame it on time dilation.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by ketzer

[thoughts, and feelings] are not strictly speaking "physical" or "matter" things, but it is through the relationships of the virtual matter as it moves (changes) that these things arise so consciousness can become conscious of them. Whether and how it could do so without the forms, I don't know, but I can't visualize how.

You yourself said that your convictions regarding the role of the brain are circular: We, as energetic structures, create the visualization of matter. Then the visualized brain should be necessary to create our thought.
That means, if visualization would cause or influence or thinking, the original cause of thinking still were the energetic structure (because it generates the visualization). So or so, the cause of thinking is the energetic structure alone. Your theory just says that virtual matter is an interstation or relay between the energetic structure and our ability to think – but all processing required for thinking is done within the energetic structure.
That raises the question: Why do you believe that thinking requires a relay of virtual matter, when this relay doesn’t add anything to the energetic structure's processing required for thinking?

Originally Posted by ketzer

Having a brain from which I experience thought arising, helps to preserve this life illusion, makes it real and consequential. So I think that may in fact be one reason this life experience has such a rule, to experience thought, which we so automatically feel as us, we see them coming from brains, and we see it ending or being altered when brains die or are injured.

I think we are coming closer together. You say “this life has the rule, to experience thought [through a brain]”. That means you actually do not say a brain is necessary per se to generate human thinking. You much more say that we defined it as an arbitrary rule that we need a brain to think, but in actual fact brains aren’t necessary for thinking.

Originally Posted by ketzer

So I think that may in fact be one reason this life experience has such a rule, to experience thought, which we so automatically feel as us, we see them coming from brains, and we see it ending or being altered when brains die or are injured.

In the last sentence you say: The belief in the brain helps us to preserve the illusion of life. But is it actually a fact that we all believe that the brain generates our thought?
Human kind doesn’t believe for a very long time that brains generate thinking. Aristotle for example thought the brain would be a sort of cooling organ that reduces the temperature of blood. Most Stone Age people didn’t know what the brain does, as well as kids or animals. Consequently you have to say that when we experience ourselves in a stone-age simulation we DO NOT need brains to think. Haven’t you?

Originally Posted by ketzer

We don't need to visualize a "physical brain" to have thought and perceptions. We only started connecting this with the thoughts when we realized that affecting the brain affects our thoughts. Before that we just had this sense of an "I" being within the body.

It seem that you actually knew what I just said on a subliminal level. You just hadn’t it explicit. In fact we do not need a brain or any other simulated object to think. Only when we decide to play along the rule: “Thinking requires Brain” we "need" the brain. But we also could deside to live in worlds were we just had a body, without knowing what is inside it, and indeed without anything inside.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Siemens

What is life about? I don’t know the full answer but obviously we, souls, incarnate and lead material lives because we want to make experiences. The reason why we want to make these experiences remains unclear. Either we want to transform through experience, or we just want to have fun in the material world, or we incarnate due to other reasons. In any case we choose the life we live intentionally.

If we use matter in order to make particular experiences, isn’t it quite probable that what we perceive as material world is nothing more than a virtual simulation devised for precisely that purpose of giving us a tool to make these experiences?
I think of matter as being a kind of computer game – a multidimensional global computer game in which we, as souls, log in over the course of an incarnation and make experiences.

Some believe that matter is a sort of substance in which we enwrap ourselves. They imagine our physical body and brain as a sort of substance to which our soul gets connected when we incarnate. They further imagine the world surrounding our body as material play-ground suitable to allow for all kinds of experiences. Like the Virtual-Matrix-Theory this explanation also implies that matter is kind of s system that’s created for to purpose of enabling us to make experiences within it. But it’s much more plausible that matter isn’t a substance but rather a virtual simulation because of two reasons:
(1) A virtual computer-game would enable us, as its users, to make precisely that experiences we would like to make. I.e. there were no physical constrains.
(2) Virtual worlds were much more economic and frugal to establish and to operate.

Siemens,

What an intriguing question!!

Hope you will appreciate an answer I've updated since the 1st time I encountered a similar question in 2013, as what I've learned since then.

There may be, however, a perspective which is too easily overlooked in the discussion which is: US. If Reality is an illusion, then what, or Who....ARE WE ?

We understand that every video game is a simulation (i.e. "illusion"), operating AS a unique set instructions programmed into software that instructs hardware to produce the APPEARANCE of all the visual, auditory, and tactile effects OF the simulation you are engaging, right ? YOU, "operating" the simulation, do NOT exist within the set of instructions which comprise the "software" running the simulation you are engaging, and are NOT even part of the hardware "equipment" which produces the APPEARANCE of those aforementioned effects.

Consider how is it that we are EVEN aware of the characters IN a video game, much less OF ourselves, when we're not playing it....at all? Our awareness of all of it is through our minds, (whose existence we cannot see, but can infer). We can further infer that though the mind is invisible, its physical instrument is the brain, which receives and responds to, the energetic frequencies of our olfactory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and auditory senses....in order FOR our minds to correlate their collective inputs TO our awareness as a cohesive picture (our experience of the world). Furthermore, the current state of the art of neuroscience corroborates this view...as explained here: (This video comes with a warning!) BTW: Please do SKIP the silly "ad"-on, which has NOTHING to do with the video)

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnEGu8VF8Y

What struck me about this video is its scientific emphasis on explaining why we've been taught to perceive ourselves as being in an "outside" environment, from infancy on...is ENTIRELY WRONG. The habit of perceiving ourselves this way is, when you think about it, the very reason we have focused inordinately on "outside" means (think "technology") to advance our civilizations. If you give yourself the opportunity to view this video, there will come a moment when you, too, will ascertain that all our approaches to our problems, seem to contain this HUGE BLIND SPOT. And that blind spot is....We still think there is an OUTSIDE to perceive...even after being shown how wrong that perception is at its very core!

...which brings me to an answer to one of your questions: Do we live in a Matrix? No. The Matrix lives in us.

How can THAT be? Consider a second reference that corroborates why, while simultaneously providing a perspective through which to answer how things, including ourselves, "matter" in the first place, as answer to: Is Matter a virtual Simulation?

As Genevieve Behrend says in her book,Your Invisible Power", (in Reference 3, below), "Endeavor to bear in mind that your mental picture is Universal Mind specifically exercising its inherent powers of initiative and selection. God, or Universal Mind, made man for the special purpose of differentiating Himself through him. Everything there is, came into existence in this same way, by this self-same law of self-differentiation, and for the same purpose. First came the idea, the mental picture, or the prototype of the thing, which is the thing itself in its incipiency. The Great Architect of the Universe contemplated Himself as manifesting through his polar opposite—matter—and the idea expanded and projected itself until we have not only a world, but many worlds."

She goes on to say..."....your mind is the mirror in which the infinite Power and Intelligence of the Universe sees Itself reproduced". In other words, your mind, repeat YOUR mind, is Universal Mind seeing Itself through your eyes. Think of the "cursor" on your computer screen as the "point of reference" through which your instructions are "placed" as you type. Similarly, You are the Whole acting as Its point of reference.

Now do you see what I mean by the Matrix is "within" us, NOT outside us?

But this is not ALL that we are.

Consider that in the holographic paradigm, "the Whole is contained in every part of the Whole" in this manner (excerpted from an article channeled by Darryl Anka, (as Bashar):

"Physiological reality, take me literally... is a mirror, it is just a more complex mirror, a holographic mirror... a multi-dimensional mirror, so that you don't always recognize all the reflections as you, but believe me... they are... .all the reflections are you, and I mean literally every object, person, place and thing, every situation... every circumstance, every moment of time and space is you being reflected back to yourself, from the particular point of view you chose to express at that particular moment. The idea therefore, is to understand, that what you will always discover, will simply be All That Is expressing itself through the unique portion of All That Is you were created to be. Remember the Second Law: "The One is All, the All are One". Every component of the All That Is, all of you... all of us, every individuated being... every individuated concept, is the whole expressing itself as a part. Important point... I'll rewind that and repeat it, because we understand that you have been trained to think segregationally, sometimes individuals on your planet may miss the point, all of you are, yes... a part of the whole, but as a part of the whole, you are the Whole expressing Itself as "a part of the whole". Big difference than just thinking of yourself as a part of the whole without the other side. You have to understand yourself holographically, it is this and that... not this or that. So, you are the part... you are the whole, you are both one and the same, but expressing the whole as a part."

I contend that this is how our awareness exists within an "Infinite Operating System", including the attributes of our own "character' (i.e. of US). The "operating system" in which WE function as ourselves is INFINITE, unlike the operating system of a video game.....which is limited solely to programmed relationships between lines of code causing hardware to produce the simulated appearance OF a character's attributes.

WE exist within an INFINITE SPIRITUAL SYSTEM as a LIVING SIMULATION !

Simulation of WHAT ??

The Creator of ALL there is....operating AS the Infinite Power and Intelligence of the Universe...WITHIN the simulation, Itself !

Please recall HOW a video game works, as indicated above, except that NOW you know that the ONLY PLAYER THERE IS is every atom of ALL the parts and ALL the props, including the "simulation" OF us being "characters" with a separate body, mind, and "I". Life is not just the time you see the plant, or the tree, or the animal, or the person, or the planet, or the star, or universes, in bloom. Life is what causes these forms to become what they are in what appears to us as an ever changing, never-ending succession. Don't believe me? What IS DNA, if not Life's software operating AS the "building blocks of Life" ?

Finally, please consider the testimony of one who describes EXACTLY the very experience OF HOW each of us WILL transition from the "forms" we occupy in "this" Earthly portion of Reality to another equally real "form" in this description of Paramhansa Yogananda's reunion with his resurrected guru, Sri Yukteswar, who had returned to Earth, for a brief interlude with his former disciple, from a higher vibratory sphere called Hiranyaloka. Here's an excerpt from the first source below:

"O Master", Yogananda said, "I was grieving so deeply about your death!" "Ah, wherein did I die? Isn't there some contradiction?" said Sri Yukteswar, eyes twinkling with love and amusement. Sri Yukteswar goes on to say to his former disciple, "You were only dreaming on earth; on that earth you saw my dream-body. Later you buried that dream-image. Now my finer fleshly body--which you behold and are even now embracing rather closely!--is resurrected on another finer dream-planet of God. Someday that finer dream-body and finer dream-planet will pass away; they too are not forever. All dream-bubbles must eventually burst at a final wakeful touch. Differentiate, my son Yogananda, between dreams and Reality!"

Awaken...

The Creator's dreams are what WE experience as Reality...

The Creator is ALL THERE IS to BE anyone or anything...

The Creator is Who we, and each other, are....

Hope this helps...



Reference: https://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chapter-43/

Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...47&postcount=2

Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...49&postcount=3

I am actually an agent of the matrix. I am inevitable. I prefer the matrix to the robot city since I get to tend to my herd of humans, who I view as cattle.

[A Gray Vidar]

we are all in Grids and Odins Vigrid to find our fate and death. to pass into eternal Vanir existence.
Namaste
Love and Blessings

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by guthrio

We understand that every video game is a simulation (i.e. "illusion"), operating AS a unique set instructions programmed into software that instructs hardware to produce the APPEARANCE of all the visual, auditory, and tactile effects OF the simulation you are engaging, right?

I agree.

Originally Posted by guthrio

YOU, "operating" the simulation, do NOT exist within the set of instructions which comprise the "software" running the simulation you are engaging, and are NOT even part of the hardware "equipment" which produces the APPEARANCE of those aforementioned effects.

Yes.

Originally Posted by guthrio

We can ... infer that though the mind is invisible, its physical instrument is the brain, which receives and responds to, the energetic frequencies of our olfactory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and auditory senses....in order FOR our minds to correlate their collective inputs TO our awareness as a cohesive picture (our experience of the world).

No, that can’t be the case.

Originally Posted by guthrio

What struck me about this video is its scientific emphasis on explaining why we've been taught to perceive ourselves as being in an "outside" environment, from infancy on...is ENTIRELY WRONG.

I agree.

---------------------

Okay, I agree in essence with what you said. There are just two points I disagree with:

(1) I think we agree that the thing that creates our conscious experience lies outside the material world. This thing is able to visualize virtual worlds within itself, like a dreamer when he dreams. If the material worlds are generated and rendered inside the-thing-that-creates-our-conscious-experience, then you obviously DO NOT NEED A BRAIN to perceive it!
The visualization already exists in the-thing-that-creates-our-conscious-experience, all we perceive is the result of simulation-processes inside the-thing-that-creates-our-conscious-experience. So, no brain is needed for perception. You could also experience a virtual world without having an avatar. Do you understand what I mean?

(2) The second point has to do with the notion that we are all one. I can’t rule it out but I won’t and don’t think that there is just on universal source that creates the simulation. I think there are multiple sources (of consciousness) and they can be independent of each other.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Siemens

I agree.


Yes.


No, that can’t be the case.


I agree.

---------------------

Okay, I agree in essence with what you said. There are just two points I disagree with:

(1) I think we agree that the thing that creates our conscious experience lies outside the material world. This thing is able to visualize virtual worlds within itself, like a dreamer when he dreams. If the material worlds are generated and rendered inside the-thing-that-creates-our-conscious-experience, then you obviously DO NOT NEED A BRAIN to perceive it!
The visualization already exists in the-thing-that-creates-our-conscious-experience, all we perceive is the result of simulation-processes inside the-thing-that-creates-our-conscious-experience. So, no brain is needed for perception. You could also experience a virtual world without having an avatar. Do you understand what I mean?

(2) The second point has to do with the notion that we are all one. I can’t rule it out but I won’t and don’t think that there is just on universal source that creates the simulation. I think there are multiple sources (of consciousness) and they can be independent of each other.

Siemens,

Thank you for taking the time to consider my post.

I think the points you raised above can be addressed with the following explanations....

We can ... infer that though the mind is invisible, its physical instrument is the brain, which receives and responds to, the energetic frequencies of our olfactory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and auditory senses....in order FOR our minds to correlate their collective inputs TO our awareness as a cohesive picture (our experience of the world).

To your point, No, that can’t be the case.:

From Bashar: "....all of you are, yes... a part of the whole, but as a part of the whole, you are the Whole expressing Itself as "a part of the whole". Big difference than just thinking of yourself as a part of the whole without the other side. You have to understand yourself holographically, it is this and that... not this or that. So, you are the part... you are the whole, you are both one and the same, but expressing the whole as a part."

Would you consider that the "part of the Whole", metaphorically called "our brains" which receives and responds to, the energetic frequencies of our olfactory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and auditory senses....in order FOR our minds to correlate their collective inputs TO our awareness as a cohesive picture (our experience of the world)....is analogous to what a TV or radio does in order to receive (perceive) the invisible frequencies "IT is configured to correlate into a movable feast of pictures or sounds"?

Your intent to "change your mind" becomes your action to activate the "remote" (your brain / body) as an extension to "change the channel of experience" to yet another (already-existing), formerly invisible channel, so to speak...

.....precisely activating the interrelated functioning of each "part of the whole experience" already available because "everything is the same One thing vibrating at different rates?"...per the Bashar reference, below.

The case is that "we" function as the undifferentiated Whole, with tuners (i.e.bodies / brains) "configured" to perceive this interrelated wholeness....as bits and pieces (which are not at all separated on any level). I hope this helps you now perceive (and hear) why this is the case? If not, consider WHY you are even able to appreciate this analogy of BEING the "tuner", in a self-reflective way, from a seemingly separate "standpoint". It is because "....you are the part... you are the whole, you are both one and the same, but expressing the whole as a part."

As to your other two points of disagreement, I believe this "Whole as a part" analogy covers them, as well.

Why? Think about it. Remember that Maya is the (illusion) appearing to make a part of the Whole seem to be "apart" from the Whole, when in Reality....

All "things" are the same one thing vibrating at different rates .....

....ALL "portions" of which function synchronistically, interactively (not independently), and most importantly, infallibly, as One Entity to enable each "part" to achieve and receive (i.e "tune into") "its" highest good.

IMHO, this appears to be the only way this "Whole" thing intended Itself to work, at every level, for "us" All!

One as All, All as One

Again, thanks for considering. Hope this helps.

Reference: https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/ (See 3rd and 4th lines under Topics).

Reference: http://montalk.net/ Transcending the Matrix Control System (you're gonna LOVE this site!)

[Phaelyn]

Do we live in a Matrix. Yes!