Tom Campbell - escaping the simulation

[Ninshub]

I'm liking this recent interview with Tom on higher metaphysics and how to experience them while incarnate.




Tom Campbell teaches practical techniques and insights that empower you to transcend the boundaries of your perceived reality. Learn how to leave this virtual reality and explore the realms beyond and discover how to navigate the virtual layers of existence. Subscribe for eye-opening discussions and guidance on unlocking the potential of consciousness

This seems to be a "universe virtual reality simulation beings - achieve freedom from spiritual bondage" lecture, described at the beginning of the video as follows,  " TOM CAMPBELL teaches Techniques on ESCAPING The SIMULATION! Tom Campbell teaches practical techniques and insights that empower you to transcend the boundaries of your perceived reality. Learn how to leave this virtual reality and explore the realms beyond and discover how to navigate the virtual layers of existence. Subscribe for eye-opening discussions and guidance on unlocking the potential of consciousness."

Just a first thought about this: There seems to be a serious flaw in Campbell's conception. He seems to assume that a human being is actually an immaterial spirit or soul, but in his world-view it very much seems that humans are really products of a hyper-advanced virtual reality simulation - they are really simulation beings.

But it is known that simulation beings must fundamentally be consciousness-free soulless AI robots that can't experience anything. No subjective consciousness. These incredibly complex software automations are created by the running of hyper-advanced computer virtual realty simulation programs in some higher existence.

These virtual reality simulation constructs can't possibly exhibit consciousness, because ultimately the simulation program itself is a great structure of individual logic gates executing algorithms of various sorts. This simulation is a program which fundamentally is only capable of executing programmed algorithmic processing. Such a mechanism can only process algorithms, period. Whereas living conscious human beings are inherently non-algorithmic and incomputable (try to compute a thought) and exhibit subjective consciousness and awareness.  So there is a fundamental gulf between simulation processing of any size or complexity, and human consciousness. 

Incidentally, this argument is related to the so-called "Hard Problem" of consciousness, which also makes the hypothesized universe impossible.  

This means Campbell's conception seems to have a fundamental flaw - we absolutely can't be simulation beings.

This seems to be a "universe virtual reality simulation beings - achieve freedom from spiritual bondage" lecture, described at the beginning of the video as follows,  " TOM CAMPBELL teaches Techniques on ESCAPING The SIMULATION! Tom Campbell teaches practical techniques and insights that empower you to transcend the boundaries of your perceived reality. Learn how to leave this virtual reality and explore the realms beyond and discover how to navigate the virtual layers of existence. Subscribe for eye-opening discussions and guidance on unlocking the potential of consciousness."

Just a first thought about this: There seems to be a serious flaw in Campbell's conception. He seems to assume that a human being is actually an immaterial spirit or soul, but in his world-view it very much seems that humans are really products of a hyper-advanced virtual reality simulation - they are really simulation beings.

But it is known that simulation beings must fundamentally be consciousness-free soulless AI robots that can't experience anything. No subjective consciousness. These incredibly complex software automations are created by the running of hyper-advanced computer virtual realty simulation programs in some higher existence.

These virtual reality simulation constructs can't possibly exhibit consciousness, because ultimately the simulation program itself is a great structure of individual logic gates executing algorithms of various sorts. This simulation is a program which fundamentally is only capable of executing programmed algorithmic processing. Such a mechanism can only process algorithms, period. Whereas living conscious human beings are inherently non-algorithmic and incomputable (try to compute a thought) and exhibit subjective consciousness and awareness.  So there is a fundamental gulf between simulation processing of any size or complexity, and human consciousness. 

Incidentally, this argument is related to the so-called "Hard Problem" of consciousness, which also makes the hypothesized universe impossible.  

This means Campbell's conception seems to have a fundamental flaw - we absolutely can't be simulation beings.

I would agree that Campbell might lean a bit too much into his Computationalist/Simulationist analogies but I don't think [this] is a fair critique of his position.

Campbell seems to be accepting of, or at least leaning toward, the Idealist side of metaphysics. Even the "computer" running the simulation has been described as consciousness.

At the beginning of the interview he says the brain isn't even a real object, just compute[d] by the larger simulation when someone gets their head cut open. He also notes that video game characters aren't conscious at all, unlike us as units of Consciousness.

All to say he seems to be quite aware of the Hard Problem and goes toward what we would probably call a type of Idealism around here. I couldn't be sure from your post if you watched the interview, if not I would recommend it.

I listened to some of the video, there may be something useful there. Though after a while I found it cluttered with wording which I suppose conveys a kind of mythology. That is, what he's saying is not to be taken literally but instead as a metaphor. To that extent it is something which will affect different people in different ways.

I listened to some of the video, there may be something useful there. Though after a while I found it cluttered with wording which I suppose conveys a kind of mythology. That is, what he's saying is not to be taken literally but instead as a metaphor. To that extent it is something which will affect different people in different ways.

Yeah to [me] it's akin to Marcus Arvan's Peer to Peer Hypothesis - there's value in the analogy but the computational references ("data stream") end up cluttering things.

I know Campbell had some odd experiences, IIRC when meeting up with Raymond Moody. I believe Campbell decided that there were certain dangers to pursuing the path of the paranormal, a warning I've seen echoed in my discussions with other people. I can't say for sure some malevolent entities exist in wait but it probably pays to be wary.

My speculation is that as a result he wanted to try and push people toward healthier mental states - Love over Entropy -  rather than the pursuit of occult "power". I also suspect the computer metaphors are what he sees as a means of keeping people on a safe path.

Yeah to [me] it's akin to Marcus Arvan's Peer to Peer Hypothesis - there's value in the analogy but the computational references ("data stream") end up cluttering things.

I know Campbell had some odd experiences, IIRC when meeting up with Raymond Moody. I believe Campbell decided that there were certain dangers to pursuing the path of the paranormal, a warning I've seen echoed in my discussions with other people. I can't say for sure some malevolent entities exist in wait but it probably pays to be wary.

My speculation is that as a result he wanted to try and push people toward healthier mental states - Love over Entropy -  rather than the pursuit of occult "power". I also suspect the computer metaphors are what he sees as a means of keeping people on a safe path.

It looks to me more like a desire on Campbell's part to appeal to the largest possible number of unsophisticated candidate adherents, by using the currently popular simulation universe concept, regardless of the contradictions involved.

It looks to me more like a desire on Campbell's part to appeal to the largest possible number of unsophisticated candidate adherents, by using the currently popular simulation universe concept, regardless of the contradictions involved.

How many people would really find the talk of data streams that appealing when discussing a spiritual path?

Admittedly there are Tom Campbell fans/adherents that seem to cling to his wording and treat it sort of like gospel, but this doesn't seem to be a large group compared to varied authors promoting alternative spiritual ideas.

To me it seems he would be more popular and make more money if he dropped a lot of his computational metaphors, or if he discussed the experiences with Moody that AFAIK he has never revealed.

I like Tom but I get turned off by all the acronyms. Then again I get turned off by acronyms at the best of times and having worked for many years for a large US tech company, I got more than my fill of them. I fail to get why people first invent a string of long words to describe something and then feel the need to shorten to the initials while expecting everyone to have read the full version and understand what the acronym stands for.

OK, rant over.

I think that if Tom thought his audience is probably sophisticated science-minded people then I suspect that was and is simply naïve but then I don't believe he does think that's who he's talking to. I think his language follows the habits of a lifetime in science and technology and his terminology for what we might think of as spiritual is what comes natural to him. I visited his forum several years back and found some of the regulars to be particularly hostile at the slightest hint of disagreement or at failure to adhere to Tom's nomenclature.

By the way, did you mean Moody or possibly Monroe?

I like Tom but I get turned off by all the acronyms. Then again I get turned off by acronyms at the best of times and having worked for many years for a large US tech company, I got more than my fill of them. I fail to get why people first invent a string of long words to describe something and then feel the need to shorten to the initials while expecting everyone to have read the full version and understand what the acronym stands for.

OK, rant over.

I think that if Tom thought his audience is probably sophisticated science-minded people then I suspect that was and is simply naïve but then I don't believe he does think that's who he's talking to. I think his language follows the habits of a lifetime in science and technology and his terminology for what we might think of as spiritual is what comes natural to him. I visited his forum several years back and found some of the regulars to be particularly hostile at the slightest hint of disagreement or at failure to adhere to Tom's nomenclature.

By the way, did you mean Moody or possibly Monroe?

I could have sworn it was Moody, but now that you mention Monroe maybe I was wrong...

[Ninshub]

Campbell was one of the original members when Monroe set up his experimenters' research lab. See this post I made on his book Far Journeys:
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-r...4#pid49744

If you read it, you'll hear descriptions by "TC", in his own words, of his OBE travels and communications.