You simply dismiss it as "self-delusion", and have never tested it.
I've tested it several times by asking your God to strike me down with lightning, but nothing happened. Please, God, strike me down now!
See ? I'm still here.
But, no, you've offered nothing but nonsense here and knee-jerk reactions of someone almost totally ignorant of every aspect of all relevant fields
You're probably even more ignorant about the relevant fields relating to easter bunnies, but you still don't want to open your heart and mind to it. You just need to ask, and the easter bunny will save you. Only ignorance is stopping you.
Many have, and have had their test validated. I suggest the test of "asking".
Self delusion is not validation.
I think upon investigation you'd find the motivations much broader than you suppose--particularly among the people who had no personal gain (i.e. monks), or negative personal gain (i.e. martyrs to Rome)
You are describing the victims of religion, not the men in power.
That the religion "didn't exist" hardly matters, as it isn't an issue of existence, but rather of when revealed to humans.
Well, it existed, but in other forms. Religions are constantly being modified in an attempt to yield more power. You are now saying that religious people that lived 5000 years ago were wrong about their beliefs, just as people 5000 years from now will say you are wrong. A heretic even.
You'll be in a much better position to win your argument
I already won, but you're too stuck in your own crazy world to realize it. Being religious is like being permanently on mind altering drugs. You won't even realize that you're wrong when you die, because there will be nothing.
Of course. None of the religions actually produce any testable experiments, so they are equally plausible. Religions are mostly about creating power to influence other people. And the religions that are the most popular now, are a fairly recent invention. A few thousand years ago, they didn't even exist in this form.
What then, if I evaluated the simulation using pen and paper, and it took thousands of years to evaluate each new state.
What if you recorded every state on a magnetic tape, and then instead of simulating, you would just re-run the tape ? What if if you just spool the tape without actually reading the information from it ? What if you just leave the tape on a shelf ?
Near" is a broad term that is inclusive of clinical death
If you have conscious experiences, and then you wake up, you weren't dead. It's that simple. That these experiences then match the cultural expectations isn't very surprising.
If they are not truly random, then you have to believe that everything that happens in your brain is not random. In other words, it is pre-ordained, so we don't have free will at all.
But in what sense would having truly random events be an improvement ?
It wasn't publicly funded by the entire world, though, so it makes sense to restrict the data sharing to the scientists of the countries that helped funding it.
Just because someone can compute the results of what would have happened in some simulated scenario, doesn't mean that that a conscious experience of that scenario magically gets created.
If consciousness does not translate in any detectable behavior changes, then why did consciousness ever evolve ? Magic ?
it would most definitely make me a lot of money to buy the patent for a few million dollars and sit on it until it ran out and keep selling the batteries that have to be replaced.
No, it doesn't make sense to do that. The patent only gives you protection for 15 years, while you keep selling batteries at existing volume, at a small margin, whereas the superior batteries would give you a much bigger market and much higher margin. Sure, after a while you may have to look for a different business, but with a few billion of profit in the bank, there's a lot of opportunities.
Slashdot Mirror
You simply dismiss it as "self-delusion", and have never tested it.
I've tested it several times by asking your God to strike me down with lightning, but nothing happened. Please, God, strike me down now! See ? I'm still here.
But, no, you've offered nothing but nonsense here and knee-jerk reactions of someone almost totally ignorant of every aspect of all relevant fields
You're probably even more ignorant about the relevant fields relating to easter bunnies, but you still don't want to open your heart and mind to it. You just need to ask, and the easter bunny will save you. Only ignorance is stopping you.
Rotting organic material actually does release a lot of CO2.
Not nearly as much as live organic material driving around in a car.
Many have, and have had their test validated. I suggest the test of "asking".
Self delusion is not validation.
I think upon investigation you'd find the motivations much broader than you suppose--particularly among the people who had no personal gain (i.e. monks), or negative personal gain (i.e. martyrs to Rome)
You are describing the victims of religion, not the men in power.
That the religion "didn't exist" hardly matters, as it isn't an issue of existence, but rather of when revealed to humans.
Well, it existed, but in other forms. Religions are constantly being modified in an attempt to yield more power. You are now saying that religious people that lived 5000 years ago were wrong about their beliefs, just as people 5000 years from now will say you are wrong. A heretic even.
You'll be in a much better position to win your argument
I already won, but you're too stuck in your own crazy world to realize it. Being religious is like being permanently on mind altering drugs. You won't even realize that you're wrong when you die, because there will be nothing.
Really? All equivalently implausible?
Of course. None of the religions actually produce any testable experiments, so they are equally plausible. Religions are mostly about creating power to influence other people. And the religions that are the most popular now, are a fairly recent invention. A few thousand years ago, they didn't even exist in this form.
What then, if I evaluated the simulation using pen and paper, and it took thousands of years to evaluate each new state.
What if you recorded every state on a magnetic tape, and then instead of simulating, you would just re-run the tape ? What if if you just spool the tape without actually reading the information from it ? What if you just leave the tape on a shelf ?
Near" is a broad term that is inclusive of clinical death
If you have conscious experiences, and then you wake up, you weren't dead. It's that simple. That these experiences then match the cultural expectations isn't very surprising.
I assume you don't need all the data if you just wanted it for education purposes.
If they are not truly random, then you have to believe that everything that happens in your brain is not random. In other words, it is pre-ordained, so we don't have free will at all.
But in what sense would having truly random events be an improvement ?
It wasn't publicly funded by the entire world, though, so it makes sense to restrict the data sharing to the scientists of the countries that helped funding it.
The people who report near death experiences weren't dead either. The word "near" should have given you a clue.
What kind of free will would you want that cannot be encoded in an automaton ?
Most popular, you mean. They're all very implausible.
Why do scientists even watch Hollywood movies ? Shouldn't they be off limits too ?
Just because someone can compute the results of what would have happened in some simulated scenario, doesn't mean that that a conscious experience of that scenario magically gets created.
If consciousness does not translate in any detectable behavior changes, then why did consciousness ever evolve ? Magic ?
In fact, you may be the only thing simulated in high detail. The rest of us are just hollow robots. That would explain a lot.
I think Santa Claus is simulating God on a Linux desktop.
You can create similar effects by using drugs. Drugs are evidence too, then ?
What do NDEs have to do with Jesus ? It's not evidence if it's not even related.
Precisely one ? Why ?
But who's simulating God ?
Convince a significant fraction of the population that their existence is pointless because they live in a simulation.
Why would living in a simulation make life any more pointless than it is now ?
But do the turtles run Linux?
It's Linux all the way down.
it would most definitely make me a lot of money to buy the patent for a few million dollars and sit on it until it ran out and keep selling the batteries that have to be replaced.
No, it doesn't make sense to do that. The patent only gives you protection for 15 years, while you keep selling batteries at existing volume, at a small margin, whereas the superior batteries would give you a much bigger market and much higher margin. Sure, after a while you may have to look for a different business, but with a few billion of profit in the bank, there's a lot of opportunities.