"Earth as a Simulation Series I: How the New Age movements spiritual sayings are 'correct' for a COPIED population where everyone is 'accurately' living SOMEONE ELSE's LIFE. How 'Confirmation Bias & Cognitive Dissonance' are the deducible 'Fixed Behaviours' a copied population will present BUT, wont figure out because 'software' defined people can easily be managed."
Main Page Headings List
“Would you expect there to be observable differences in the behaviours, attitudes, understandings, beliefs and responses between a simulated copied person in a simulation compared to a real person living in a real reality?”
Would there be differences that would be observable and perhaps even noticed and even (god forbid) measurable?
For the earlier ‘Each person is an actor’ page I wrote . . .
“If we are in a simulation then each person will be very accurately living the life of someone else”
What does this imply or even actually really MEAN?
Well, what this means is that each person is emulated to exhibit the same behaviours, the same personality, the same ideas and the same understandings and beliefs as the person they are simulating.
ALSO, I will yet again REMIND you that to maintain the accuracy of each person in a simulation they will deliberately be KEPT aligned to the person they are simulating at all costs. In this respect, they will be ‘nudged and manoeuvred’ to take in the same degree of information and to hold to the same understandings and to make the same choices and decisions. They will be a member of the same social, political and or work group, they will exhibit the same thinking patterns, the same feeling responses AND they will be emulated to make the same ‘significant’ decisions at the same time as the person they are a copy of.
Will a Simulated Copied Persons Behaviour be Different to a Real Persons Behaviour in a Real Reality?
Because of the above, then ‘IF’ we are living in a simulation then as simulated people we would be observably locked into our behaviours, interactions, our understandings and our beliefs AND this would be true even with the respect to the scale and sophistication of our thinking compared to a real person in a real reality.
Under the above circumstances then the following would very, very likely be OBSERVABLE . . .
It is very likely that you could present easily understandable information to a simulated copy of a person to help them become aware that for example their ‘behaviour, understandings, beliefs and choices’ aren’t perhaps as sensible or ‘rational’ as they imagine in a basic sense.
It is very likely that you could repeatedly present information divergent to what a simulated copied person is being FORCIBLY held to AND they’d still have little or no capacity to change their behaviour or their understandings or their thinking or their beliefs or their decisions as they will always automatically be reverted to what is defined by the script of the person they are an accurate copy of.
Let me give you a REAL LIVE example of this . . .
‘IF’ the people we are allegedly simulating are living in a real ‘reality’ then while they are living permanently, moment by moment in that ‘real’ reality and environment they will build up solid and unchanging understandings and expectations relating to ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OR A REAL REALITY.
Will a Simulated Copied Researchers Behaviour be Different to a Real Researchers Behaviour in a Real Reality?
‘IF’ we are simulating such people AND particularly researchers, as in academics and scientists from the original ‘real’ environment then these original researchers will in many case have spent their entire research life studying a really ‘real’ reality and as such they will end up with embedded understandings, behaviours, responses and EXPECTATIONS of how they CONSISTENTLY day in day out found their ‘real’ reality to REALLY BE. Their understandings will become embedded and instinctive.
‘IF’ we are in a simulation then anyone simulating one of these researchers with their engrained expectations of what a real reality is actually REALLY LIKE would NOT actually here respond rationally or realistically if their simulated reality presented even seriously obvious flaws or anomalies. They’d automatically assume that the flaws were not real because in an accurate simulation the 24/7/52 experience of the real person they are simulating whom lived in a real reality wouldn’t have EVER encountered any reality oddities or anomalies AND as such they’d actually be STRUCTURALLY cognitively blind to any potential ‘reality’ faults that they encountered within a simulation.
A simulated researcher in a simulated reality that encountered evidence, information or claims that didn’t conform to their EMBEDDED EXPECTATIONS would likely exhibit an IMMEDIATE ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ response while also exhibiting severe difficulty in RATIONALLY & OBJECTIVELY thinking about or evaluating ANYTHING that didn’t conform to their embedded SCRIPTED expectations.
As someone whom worked in science as a scientist for 16 years I can unreservedly confirm that I have personally observed the above automated responses and the absurd inability of so called objective people to actually be objective and rational when presented with possibilities that don’t conform to their (very obviously built in) expectations.
The inability of a simulated person to take in and ‘objectively’ evaluate information that is significantly different compared to the information and understandings of the person they are simulating is one of the ‘Absolute’ STRUCTURAL differences that you can EASILY deduce will be OBSERVABLE ‘IF’ you are a very accurate copy of someone else because this will result in you being completely FORCIBLY aligned to the original persons attitudes, behaviours, ideologies, decisions, understandings, expectations, interests and so on and so on.
You could likely repeatedly present information divergent to what the person they are accurately emulating is scripted as being held to AND they’d still have little or no capacity to change their behaviour or their understandings or their thinking as they will always automatically be reverted to what is defined and scripted of the person they are an accurate copy of.
This is exactly what you would expect ‘IF’ you are in a simulation AND it was IMPORTANT as part of what would be a very, VERY, EXPENSIVE simulation project to retain accuracy.
- Just to make this VERY CLEAR, an accurately copied simulated person living in a simulated reality would automatically and ALWAYS present divergent behaviours compared to a person living in a real reality.
- The divergent behaviours exhibited by a simulated population cannot be hidden because they are the natural and the easily, EASILY deduced OUTCOME OF having simulating copied people living IN A SIMULATION PROJECT.
- Just to make this extra, EXTRA CLEAR these divergent behaviours cannot be changed or altered without sabotaging the objective of the simulation project. As a simulation designer, you are STUCK WITH THEM.
- As such a copied population being rendered in a simulation project will automatically ALWAYS exhibit these specific STRUCTURAL ANOMALIES.
- These structural anomalies are ANOMALIES that the designers cannot IN THE SLIGHTEST avoided having visibly and observably presented WITHIN THE SIMULATED POPULATION.
In other words in a ‘real’ reality there wouldn’t be ANY noticeable ‘confirmation bias OR cognitive dissonance’ AT ALL.
NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST . . .
In a simulated reality with accurate, simulated as conscious people then EVERY SINGLE SIMULATED PERSON IN THAT REALITY would exhibit confirmation bias. Even worse there is absolutely no way to avoid having your population exhibit confirmation bias without compromising the accuracy of your simulation.
In other words . . .
Confirmation Bias & Cognitive Dissonance are examples of STRUCTURAL ANOMALIES.
They are STRUCTURAL anomalies because it is ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY & UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to avoid having EACH simulated person in a simulated population exhibiting these anomalies.
‘IF’ your population is exhibiting confirmation bias OR cognitive dissonance then this would not only be evidence that you were in someone’s simulation project BUT it would be proof of this.
‘IF’ as a simulation designer you deduced and therefore KNEW that your simulated population would exhibit confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance AND you also knew that ‘IF’ your population figured out WHAT THIS MEANT then it would be a DISASTER FOR YOUR EXPENSIVE SIMULATION PROJECT then what strategies would you implement to ensure that your population didn’t join these unbelievably stupidly simple dots?
What would you do to make sure that under specific conditions your simulated people would give a seriously good impression of being feeble minded because apparently they cannot even be begin to THINK of seriously OBVIOUS, STUPIDLY SIMPLE THINGS?
Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .