a reply to:
Peeple
I get the frustration..
I think the biggest obstacle is our own limitations. Our perception as a species seems so coherent and
complete, because that is how our brains
work.
But when it comes to exploring what we don't know, in any context or subject, it can be like scraping at a stone wall with our fingernails.
I believe we can slowly expand this through our Cultural Story, but I also have to assume that our biology places a very, very hard limit on things.
So, when it comes to understanding processes, intelligences, and even sentience that is different than our own.. man.. that's tough. We can only ever
"understand" things by incorporating them into our perception, but in doing so on these things, we might be introducing an insurmountable and fatal
flaw right from the start.
I actually go to simulation and AI for some semblance of a theory. The problem is that I feel our understanding of those concepts is so far off base
as to be nearly useless.
If forced to explain myself, I believe that we are dealing with
fields of intelligence that exist both in and out of the bubble of time and
space. Alongside this, we are dealing with sentient beings that are much in the same boat as we are, and our impacts on each other obfuscate
exploration because of how
alien we are to each other. It could even be as 'silly' as their sneezes creating our "ghosts." In an AI policed
simulation, it may simply be translating those sneezes as our ghosts in order to maintain
overall coherency in some form of pareidolia that we
can't even fathom. Kind of like a temporal Google translate malfunction.
I think the fields (what we explore through electromagnetism) enable processes like sentience by providing a template of intelligence that we stencil
in as we grow.
Of course, that starts to imply everything from "who we are" being maintained outside of our bodies and maybe even time, but the filter of our biology
blocks us from seeing it just like polarized sunglasses block glare.
I think we might be dealing with a simulation, that is not much like our concept of 'simulation,' that uses intelligent fields (that we might best
understand as the concept of nanites), to provide overarcing coherency between
vastly different experiential frameworks (and probably much more
than that).