You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago 

I really think all the talk about being in a simulation game is just over complicating the same observation and belief that has existed in many religious and secular philosophies for millennia. What we take for reality is just an illusion and actual reality is under, above and around it. Now it is just becoming popular to use the language of modern technology to describe it. Unfortunately, I think using the terms they are using tends to undersell the idea because it suggests to simple people that we are in a simulation actually being run on what we think of as computers by beings like us but outside the simulation. But that view almost certainly places undue restrictions on what is essentially an ineffable matter.

0
0

[–] Wazhappenin1 [S] ago 

The simulation theory def reminds me of the Buddhist view of life and suffering being an illusion. I never considered the language being an issue though. In fact the language used now makes it accessible. Instead of MIT yakking something beyond our education level they are using language that a all understand.

That being said you don't seem to have a problem with the concept!?

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago 

My only problem with the concept is that it is being presented as something brand new. I believe the idea of cultural appropriation is bullshit, but there is kind of an issue of standing on the shoulders of giants. It just seems to me like people are taking credit for complex innovative new thoughts when all they are really doing is reinventing the wheel and calling it something else.

To be fair, that is probably less their doing than that of the press who is reporting on it. The media is so incredibly ignorant they probably have no idea about either historical philosophical thought or what the current guys are fundamentally talking about.