Tom Campbell - escaping the simulation

Pretty sure I have mixed in posts with my own criticisms of Campbell, as well as what I like about his work.

And I have taken care of a relative with dementia, to the point of doing at home hospice and waiting for them to die. Nevertheless I can find value in some what Campbell says as a possibility that may or may not be true.

It is entirely possible Campbell is a complete fraud, as you note he - AFAIK - refuses to perform OOBEs that would at least settle the matter of him having that claimed ability.

But I find it a bit odd to have such a harsh reaction his words?

This is my part in trying to breathe some life into an echo chamber forum. Debate. Challenges. Upending things a bit.

It isn't my first round of trying to listen to, or make sense of, Campbell's ramblings. We can debate possibilities about what may or may not be true about his claims. But obviously not with him, smug is as smug does. He appears to have an answer for many things, whether truth or not.
I'm not a fan, and likely never will be.

To me, it is again a case of a powerless person with no talent or skill, trying to insert an opinion without any evidence or proof.

The only reason he is getting any screen time is because of his past dealings with people who do have something to say.
I think the only reason he has gotten this far with this subject is because it is so fringe that he thinks nobody can challenge his biased nonsense with real facts.

The facts, and life experiences, I do have, don't support his ramblings, which is what this drivel is to me.

Opinions are like aholes, we all have one, they likely all stink. 

And, see? We now have some things to debate or discuss that were not here yesterday.

This is my part in trying to breathe some life into an echo chamber forum. Debate. Challenges. Upending things a bit.

It isn't my first round of trying to listen to, or make sense of, Campbell's ramblings. We can debate possibilities about what may or may not be true about his claims. But obviously not with him, smug is as smug does. He appears to have an answer for many things, whether truth or not.
I'm not a fan, and likely never will be.

To me, it is again a case of a powerless person with no talent or skill, trying to insert an opinion without any evidence or proof.

The only reason he is getting any screen time is because of his past dealings with people who do have something to say.
I think the only reason he has gotten this far with this subject is because it is so fringe that he thinks nobody can challenge his biased nonsense with real facts.

The facts, and life experiences, I do have, don't support his ramblings, which is what this drivel is to me.

Opinions are like aholes, we all have one, they likely all stink. 

And, see? We now have some things to debate or discuss that were not here yesterday.

It's odd to call someone with Campbell's background talentless, though I would agree his past work in science & tech doesn't prevent him from being a fraud.

Beyond that, unsure what there is to debate? I agree that Campbell - or anyone really, who claims to be able to have OOBEs on demand - should help settle the debate on that matter.

Do I think Campbell is right about the nature of reality? Not really.

Do I think he, at times, provides some interesting ideas of what reality *might* be like? Sure.

Do I think Campbell is right about the nature of reality? Not really.

Do I think he, at times, provides some interesting ideas of what reality *might* be like? Sure.

I feel like I'm watching a train wreck happening when I force myself to listen to him. That is usually my entire being screaming out against letting people have a platform like this when the world has become so fragile and so many people appear to be lemmings influenced by anyone with a degree.

My Big Theory of Everything is a scientific model explaining how consciousness creates the physical world as a virtual reality simulation.

In the world of some generation I'm not familiar with, how cringe is that? As soon as someone goes down the simulation path, I have to tune them out as total lunatics, it is that simple. It is basically a giant deranged human ego question to me.
He then ends up in the same pile of hogwash as the flat Earth folks. Talking nonsense.

I can hear what he is trying to sell, and I don't buy any of it, and don't think it has any place in rational discussions or reality. The only people making up some simulation world are mentally ill, thus, he is mentally ill and people are sucking it up as if he is some intellectual leader that we should listen to.
Why should we listen to anything he says at all? Who is he? What has he ever proven or accomplished?

I can hear what he is trying to sell, and I don't buy any of it, and don't think it has any place in rational discussions or reality. The only people making up some simulation world are mentally ill, thus, he is mentally ill and people are sucking it up as if he is some intellectual leader that we should listen to.
Why should we listen to anything he says at all? Who is he? What has he ever proven or accomplished?

He could be making it up, but it's very unclear what your argument is against Simulationist theories in general.

Do I think reality is a computer simulation? No.

Do I think reality *could* be in the mind of God? I think there are issues with this, because it's not clear how God could have multiple experience streams of different individuals all at once. It's not impossible for Idealism to be true in some way, but this particular version seems wrong to me.

Do I think this reality *could* be made as a sort of contained space where the true nature of what is real is obscured? Sure.

He could be making it up, but it's very unclear what your argument is against Simulationist theories in general.

Do I think reality is a computer simulation? No.

Do I think this reality *could* be made as a sort of contained space where the true nature of what is real is obscured? Sure.

The obvious limitations of our own senses obscures much of the real world around us from the viewpoint of what we can observe or witness. So, of course we are limited in our abilities to see everything that is there. That would be known science and physics.
 
However, when it comes to simulations, the brains of the world already pointed out how they can't work, on my levels, so these simulation folks retreated to the point of making up reality in your mind like we are living a dream of our own... wow.

I don't need to prove my point, because I'm not the one making the simulation claim. That would be up to the people claiming this, not those saying prove it.

Arguments against the simulation theory, which proposes our reality is a computer-generated construct, focus on its lack of falsifiability, extreme computational requirements, and philosophical leaps. Critics argue it is more of a religious belief than a scientific theory, as it cannot be tested, relies on unproven assumptions about advanced consciousness, and fails to explain the complexity of the universe. 

Key Arguments Against Simulation Theory

• Unfalsifiability (Scientific Method): The theory is not scientific because no experiment can disprove it. Any evidence suggesting a simulation could simply be programmed, and any "glitch" could be explained away.
  
• Computational Infeasibility
  Simulating the entire universe at the quantum level is computationally impossible with known physics. The complexity of modeling all molecular interactions, especially quantum ones, exceeds any imaginable computer's capabilities
  
• The Problem of Consciousness: The theory assumes consciousness can be simulated, which is not known to be true. If consciousness requires more than just neural processing, a computer cannot simulate it, only "play" it like a video game.
  
• No Clear Purpose: The universe appears largely random and inefficient, with vast, empty spaces and pointless, unobserved events. A, deliberate, engineered simulation would likely be more efficient or goal-oriented.
  
• Logical Contradictions (Nested Simulations): If simulations can create their own simulations, most conscious beings would exist in the "bottom" level, where the creators are not simulated. This, paradoxically, suggests we are in a "base" reality.
  
• Complexity of Physical Laws: Our universe operates on complex, continuous laws (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics). Simulating this level of granularity, such as the Planck scale, requires immense, wasteful power. 
  

In summary, critics contend that assuming we live in a simulation requires more "faith" in advanced technology than is warranted, whereas accepting the reality of the physical world is more rational.

The obvious limitations of our own senses obscures much of the real world around us from the viewpoint of what we can observe or witness. So, of course we are limited in our abilities to see everything that is there. That would be known science and physics.
 
However, when it comes to simulations, the brains of the world already pointed out how they can't work, on my levels, so these simulation folks retreated to the point of making up reality in your mind like we are living a dream of our own... wow.

I don't need to prove my point, because I'm not the one making the simulation claim. That would be up to the people claiming this, not those saying prove it.

The proponent still has a right to ask to you prove your point, so they can be convinced otherwise, if they are rational and logical.

Everyone making a claim does need to prove their point in one way or another, I think, even if that is merely drawing upon experience as the basis for their beliefs.