From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 08:11:17 MST
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/15/2002 8:01:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mlorrey@datamann.com writes:
>
> << I think that Persinger's experiments with triggering hypnogogic seizures
> (i.e. the 'religious' or 'abduction' experience) with cycling magnetic
> fields on the brain demonstrate that there is a significant degree of
> stimuli needed to trigger these odd experiences, which could be easily
> triggered by nanoprobes tapping directly into the neural net of the
> brain. >>
>
> Well, yes, but why not just look for EM fields as a reason for people
> "seeing" things, rather then look for nanotech beings floating around? We can
> certainly perform both types of searches. Is there currently any need to hunt
> for leprechauns, though?
Persinger's fields are rather intense, far higher than what one normally
experiences in sleep from common household objects, though it would be
interesting to test alarm clocks and electric blankets, etc as part of
the control segment of the experiment.
The nanite as leprechaun hypothesis is merely one to examine, though as
objective scientists it shouldn't be shied away from since there is
significant scientific data lending credence to the idea that they
SHOULD be here.
>
> <<Well, the question of the presence of nano-probes or even
> nano-civilizations living as 'crypto-dirt' is a very important test to
> the question of whether we live in a simulation, because if you accept
> the reasoning of the Fermi Paradox, either they are here as nanites and
> we just haven't detected them yet, or else they aren't here for the
> simple reason that the universe is a simulation which is FAR younger
> than our observations would indicate, which is why we have not seen
> alien species jetting all over (or living as nanites in our brains or in
> the dustmice.) >>
>
> What would the purpose being for uber-beings to create this cosmos as a
> simulation? One of the things that concerns me with this conjecture is that
> its identical to 'young earth' creationists, who believe that God planted
> fossilized remains to fool us into believing the earth is older then 6000
> years.
EXACTLY. Except that in our case, NOT finding 'fossils' of nanoprobes
would be evidence in favor of the simulation hypothesis. If we were as
irrational as the faithful, faith in the simulation hypothesis would
remain in spite of evidence of nanoprobe presence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST