Video games and the Law of One

[Bring4th_Steve]

All, I've had a question about polarizing on my mind for a while, and while I think I might have a good grasp on the answer (after having meditated on it), I would still like to hear what you all think!

The question has to do with playing violent video games and the effects it has on polarization. By violent, I'm not just talking about the extreme end of games where an avatar yanks the spinal cord out of its defeated opponent. Rather, I'm talking about the kind of violence that trickles way down to Super Mario squashing an innocent mushroom head with the intention to dominate and subdue it for self-gain (coins! who doesn't want to dominate for coins? C'mon! hehe)

Anyway, my original confusion hovered around whether the artificial reality of video games really had an impact on one's polarization. Are we not simply pressing a joystick and moving pixels of color around a television screen? There's no soul to infringe upon, right? My actions won't affect anyone around me, since I am manipulating a disposable environment... Right??

But then I started thinking about the concept of "intention". I thought that perhaps the fact that I am intending to squash that evil-looking mushroom head is really a way for me to express a fraction of my shadow-side, while mistakingly thinking there's no repercussion. However, if I squash 200 mushroom heads and slowly become drunk and satisfied with my skills and power to dominate, or if I'm a war mongering soldier who is blowing up graphical buildings, nature, animals and any human-like figure that moves on my screen, what is that really doing to my polarization? Am I slowly conditioning myself to become more Service to Self (STS) as I gradually intend to dominate and destroy through the physical manifestation of a video game? Isn't it true that one becomes what he/she thinks?

It's an interesting topic to me, because I find this not only applies to video games, but to taking sides with the villain in a movie, laughing at the expense of someone else on a reality show, or taking to a song on the radio, not realizing that the lyrics are STS-oriented. At first glance it's all good because we're not directly affecting another soul. But since we're all one, I am affecting them because I am affecting myself! So if I play violent video games, then I'm putting that negative conditioning out into consensus reality for others to absorb, as well.

Right? I need some help on this one! Please chime in if you have any ideas. :-/

Thanks,
Steve

[Monica]

What a great question! I have pondered this quite a bit myself, and I don't know the answer to it. I have concerns about this, not so much for myself, but for all our teenagers who spend many hours each day engrossed in cyber-violence.

On the one hand, Ra did say that imagination could be a good outlet for random thoughts, and a bit of indulgence might even be healthy, as entertaining the thought in our imagination, instead of actually doing the deed, would satisfy the desire in a harmless way.

But, OTOH, Ra also said that we are holographic beings and our intentions do create our realities.

So how is this reconciled?

The conclusion I have come to thus far is that, if it's a passing thought, perhaps a momentary indulgence is relatively (relatively!) harmless, but it would seem that repeated, continued focus on violence in our imagination, or in cyberspace (which, one might speculate, could be an actual dimension, after all!) could indeed contribute to the overall mood of violence on our planet.

How could it not? Let's think about this...thoughts are things. Repeated focus on violent thoughts could create thoughtforms, taking on a life of their own...right?

I am guilty of listening to heavy music, some of which might be very symphonic and beautiful (mixed with heavy metal/rock) but with very dark lyrics. I usually don't pay attention to the lyrics but think of the voice as an instrument...sometimes I am shocked to learn what they're really saying, as the music sounded so beautiful. In those cases, I sometimes fool myself into thinking the lyrics are actually positive. But I know they are not, so it does nag at me.

Look at how Pathworking affects us by allowing us to interact with the Archetypes...is not playing a video game a sort of Pathworking?

Let's explore this...

[Bring4th_Steve]

All, I've had a question about polarizing on my mind for a while, and while I think I might have a good grasp on the answer (after having meditated on it), I would still like to hear what you all think!

The question has to do with playing violent video games and the effects it has on polarization. By violent, I'm not just talking about the extreme end of games where an avatar yanks the spinal cord out of its defeated opponent. Rather, I'm talking about the kind of violence that trickles way down to Super Mario squashing an innocent mushroom head with the intention to dominate and subdue it for self-gain (coins! who doesn't want to dominate for coins? C'mon! hehe)

Anyway, my original confusion hovered around whether the artificial reality of video games really had an impact on one's polarization. Are we not simply pressing a joystick and moving pixels of color around a television screen? There's no soul to infringe upon, right? My actions won't affect anyone around me, since I am manipulating a disposable environment... Right??

But then I started thinking about the concept of "intention". I thought that perhaps the fact that I am intending to squash that evil-looking mushroom head is really a way for me to express a fraction of my shadow-side, while mistakingly thinking there's no repercussion. However, if I squash 200 mushroom heads and slowly become drunk and satisfied with my skills and power to dominate, or if I'm a war mongering soldier who is blowing up graphical buildings, nature, animals and any human-like figure that moves on my screen, what is that really doing to my polarization? Am I slowly conditioning myself to become more Service to Self (STS) as I gradually intend to dominate and destroy through the physical manifestation of a video game? Isn't it true that one becomes what he/she thinks?

It's an interesting topic to me, because I find this not only applies to video games, but to taking sides with the villain in a movie, laughing at the expense of someone else on a reality show, or taking to a song on the radio, not realizing that the lyrics are STS-oriented. At first glance it's all good because we're not directly affecting another soul. But since we're all one, I am affecting them because I am affecting myself! So if I play violent video games, then I'm putting that negative conditioning out into consensus reality for others to absorb, as well.

Right? I need some help on this one! Please chime in if you have any ideas. :-/

Thanks,
Steve

What a great question! I have pondered this quite a bit myself, and I don't know the answer to it. I have concerns about this, not so much for myself, but for all our teenagers who spend many hours each day engrossed in cyber-violence.

On the one hand, Ra did say that imagination could be a good outlet for random thoughts, and a bit of indulgence might even be healthy, as entertaining the thought in our imagination, instead of actually doing the deed, would satisfy the desire in a harmless way.

But, OTOH, Ra also said that we are holographic beings and our intentions do create our realities.

So how is this reconciled?

The conclusion I have come to thus far is that, if it's a passing thought, perhaps a momentary indulgence is relatively (relatively!) harmless, but it would seem that repeated, continued focus on violence in our imagination, or in cyberspace (which, one might speculate, could be an actual dimension, after all!) could indeed contribute to the overall mood of violence on our planet.

How could it not? Let's think about this...thoughts are things. Repeated focus on violent thoughts could create thoughtforms, taking on a life of their own...right?

I am guilty of listening to heavy music, some of which might be very symphonic and beautiful (mixed with heavy metal/rock) but with very dark lyrics. I usually don't pay attention to the lyrics but think of the voice as an instrument...sometimes I am shocked to learn what they're really saying, as the music sounded so beautiful. In those cases, I sometimes fool myself into thinking the lyrics are actually positive. But I know they are not, so it does nag at me.

Look at how Pathworking affects us by allowing us to interact with the Archetypes...is not playing a video game a sort of Pathworking?

Let's explore this...

Wow, awesome insights, DreamingPeace! Yes, let's definitely continue on this. You are right in that thoughts are, indeed things. I wish I could remember where I read this, but it's "said" that many fictitious characters "actually live" in other dimensions because our consensus reality has thought so heavily about Characters like Charlie Brown, or Superman. So your supposition that thinking enough about a certain vibration, no matter what the intention, creates a reality more and more for it.. Whether it's a song, a game, or a deceased person. Hmmm...
                 You rang?

[Monica]

All, I've had a question about polarizing on my mind for a while, and while I think I might have a good grasp on the answer (after having meditated on it), I would still like to hear what you all think!

The question has to do with playing violent video games and the effects it has on polarization. By violent, I'm not just talking about the extreme end of games where an avatar yanks the spinal cord out of its defeated opponent. Rather, I'm talking about the kind of violence that trickles way down to Super Mario squashing an innocent mushroom head with the intention to dominate and subdue it for self-gain (coins! who doesn't want to dominate for coins? C'mon! hehe)

Anyway, my original confusion hovered around whether the artificial reality of video games really had an impact on one's polarization. Are we not simply pressing a joystick and moving pixels of color around a television screen? There's no soul to infringe upon, right? My actions won't affect anyone around me, since I am manipulating a disposable environment... Right??

But then I started thinking about the concept of "intention". I thought that perhaps the fact that I am intending to squash that evil-looking mushroom head is really a way for me to express a fraction of my shadow-side, while mistakingly thinking there's no repercussion. However, if I squash 200 mushroom heads and slowly become drunk and satisfied with my skills and power to dominate, or if I'm a war mongering soldier who is blowing up graphical buildings, nature, animals and any human-like figure that moves on my screen, what is that really doing to my polarization? Am I slowly conditioning myself to become more Service to Self (STS) as I gradually intend to dominate and destroy through the physical manifestation of a video game? Isn't it true that one becomes what he/she thinks?

It's an interesting topic to me, because I find this not only applies to video games, but to taking sides with the villain in a movie, laughing at the expense of someone else on a reality show, or taking to a song on the radio, not realizing that the lyrics are STS-oriented. At first glance it's all good because we're not directly affecting another soul. But since we're all one, I am affecting them because I am affecting myself! So if I play violent video games, then I'm putting that negative conditioning out into consensus reality for others to absorb, as well.

Right? I need some help on this one! Please chime in if you have any ideas. :-/

Thanks,
Steve

What a great question! I have pondered this quite a bit myself, and I don't know the answer to it. I have concerns about this, not so much for myself, but for all our teenagers who spend many hours each day engrossed in cyber-violence.

On the one hand, Ra did say that imagination could be a good outlet for random thoughts, and a bit of indulgence might even be healthy, as entertaining the thought in our imagination, instead of actually doing the deed, would satisfy the desire in a harmless way.

But, OTOH, Ra also said that we are holographic beings and our intentions do create our realities.

So how is this reconciled?

The conclusion I have come to thus far is that, if it's a passing thought, perhaps a momentary indulgence is relatively (relatively!) harmless, but it would seem that repeated, continued focus on violence in our imagination, or in cyberspace (which, one might speculate, could be an actual dimension, after all!) could indeed contribute to the overall mood of violence on our planet.

How could it not? Let's think about this...thoughts are things. Repeated focus on violent thoughts could create thoughtforms, taking on a life of their own...right?

I am guilty of listening to heavy music, some of which might be very symphonic and beautiful (mixed with heavy metal/rock) but with very dark lyrics. I usually don't pay attention to the lyrics but think of the voice as an instrument...sometimes I am shocked to learn what they're really saying, as the music sounded so beautiful. In those cases, I sometimes fool myself into thinking the lyrics are actually positive. But I know they are not, so it does nag at me.

Look at how Pathworking affects us by allowing us to interact with the Archetypes...is not playing a video game a sort of Pathworking?

Let's explore this...

Wow, awesome insights, DreamingPeace! Yes, let's definitely continue on this. You are right in that thoughts are, indeed things. I wish I could remember where I read this, but it's "said" that many fictitious characters "actually live" in other dimensions because our consensus reality has thought so heavily about Characters like Charlie Brown, or Superman. So your supposition that thinking enough about a certain vibration, no matter what the intention, creates a reality more and more for it.. Whether it's a song, a game, or a deceased person. Hmmm...
                 You rang?

Hey Superhero , that is a disconcerting, yet fascinating, thought! ...gives a whole new 'dimension' to the concept of Co-Creation!

My training in Rebirthing, in the importance of expressing (harmlessly) and clearing negative emotions, has been validated by Q'uo.

Can someone help me here? I'm referring to a particular session in which instructions were given for gathering negative emotions into the heart, where they can be transformed into Love...this really blew my mind! To think of the heart as a transformative device...sort of like those Play-Do toys where you input some goo and out comes a pretty shape! I've utilized this technique many times since reading that, and have found it to be very powerful!

We know that emotions have an important purpose in 3D...we know that Ra has advised us to use our imagination as an outlet for negative urges, rather than acting upon them.

Do you think maybe playing video games (or listening to emotionally intense or lyrically negative music, watching violent movies, etc.) might be healthy if it's used therapeutically and consciously, as in, venting, burning off some steam...but then at some point, if we continue to indulge, then it might begin to actually ADD to the very negativity we were trying to alleviate?

So, maybe the question is: At what point does it (meaning imagination, whether in the mind or in cyber-space) cease to become therapeutic and begin to productive, as in, the creation of or adding energy to, thoughtforms?

[Travis]

I found a Q'uo channeling about video games and polarity which I will link up Click for Channeling

[Bring4th_Steve]

I found a Q'uo channeling about video games and polarity which I will link up Click for Channeling

Travis, that was the perfect response! And in a lot of ways, it reflects what we have already thought was the case. Many thanks for this timely reply!

Steve

[ayadew]

I found a Q'uo channeling about video games and polarity which I will link up Click for Channeling

Lovely, thank you.
I played the online game "World of Warcraft" for a while, and in retrospect it was very destructive for my spiritual self.
The ultimate purpose of the game is to be separated, to be lonely on a mountain of vanity, simply collecting items to boost your separation. It's almost amusing it its tragedy... some tries to build Community, but you can't trust anyone in such an environment, for everyone wants the items of separation. Everyone will abandon the community if chance arises to gain better items.

I do enjoy games where the opponent has the equal opportunity and chance to beat me. That is a friendly fight on equal terms. Sadly not many online games are made to be on equal terms.

[3D Sunset]

A lot of interesting thoughts, but it seems to me that it really all boils down to one's personal intent with the game. The game is neither good nor bad, positive nor negative. It is the individual that, feeling the emotions while playing the game and then taking those thoughts and reactions and processing them into the matrix of the mind, that cause an effect on the individual. Just as two different people can have radically different responses from the same situation, so to can individuals receive different polarizations (or none at all) from the playing of a game.

It seems to me that one should look first at what draws them to the game. In some cases it may provide an opportunity for balance to offset or allow assimilation or understanding of some other experience. Similarly, these games may be helpful if one feels the need to express this side of themselves without infringing on another's free will. Remember that "controlling" or "supressing" even "negative" emotions is strongly discouraged in the LOO, because to do so is to deny the One Infinite Creator an opportunity to experience itself. Rather, one should find a non-infringing way to have the experience (fantasy is also recommended), and then seek to balance these emotions with their offsetting Love.

So I think that there is a very useful place for even the most violent games, if they are used appropriately. Most users though, probably gain neither positive or negative polarization from such activities, and rather find them as another convenient excuse to remain spiritually asleep.

3D Sunset

[ayadew]

So I think that there is a very useful place for even the most violent games, if they are used appropriately. Most users though, probably gain neither positive or negative polarization from such activities, and rather find them as another convenient excuse to remain spiritually asleep.

3D Sunset

Yes indeed, so many tries to remain asleep by amusing themselves, and in times of rest they get frustrated by "boredom". I feel deeply for them, and they are many.

[C-JEAN]

Hi, all good persons !

If you want a "game" that **raises** you, try Flight Simulator,
or better: X-PLANE !. . . B-)
Totaly pacific, peaceful, NO-war-involved !

It is rather self-rewarding, when you take-off, and then
**succeed** your landing. . . the hardest part. . . B-)
And it has been an occasion for "serve to others", for me:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=71

Blue skies.

[MisterRabbit]

yeah, doesn't Ra say at some point that we should pursue whatever experiences we really desire, and not try and hold back and control ourselves so much? I don't remember exactly where, but pretty sure they do. Seems to me like it is just a part of the infinite variety of experiences the creator can have of itself, and so is a perfect aspect of the creator like all others, and in a more finite sense it is just a natural part of our development or the development of some, an experience they choose to have and they create. It's obvious that some feelings of negative polarity are finding expression there, but I think of it more like certain negative things that are engaged in by animals or by humans who aren't really aware of what they're doing. I suppose it's different for us because we are in the "choice" density, but yaknow it's one of those things that we do, and if you want to do it, you can, and it will probably keep you asleep, but that doesn't really matter because no matter where you are along the path you're really perfect all along...which may be a moot point in the context of our development, but I kindjust think that you do what you do when you're ready to do it, and you don't do what you don't do when you're ready not to do it, so...just seems like it's not something to worry about too much. Because, of course, it doesn't infringe on free will. Anyway, that's my take on it.

[MisterRabbit]

Aslo, it sort of seems like...well, our situation is that we are interpreting the reality we are directly aware of based on a series of abstractions in language which are based on a reality that we are not directly aware of. So, if we go around doing this, then really it's sort of like just another form of judgment when you think about it, its just another tree of knowledge. Except now instead of worrying that you'll burn in hell, you're worrying that you might not make it to 4th, which is somewhat less distressing, but still just another version of the same thing, really. So, while yes, it is absolutely important to make decisions based on your progress, I don't necessarily think it's good to make decisions based on a series of abstractions. So, instead of worrying, hypothetically, that you might be becoming polarized negatively (there's the abstraction) by playing a certain game and therefore might not get into fourth density (another abstraction), what it seems to me would be more beneficial is to think to yourself "is this really what I want to be doing right now? Does this resonate with what I am about at this moment, or am I slipping back into unawareness?" I guess that's what I was really trying to get at. But the main point, over and above any discussion of densities and percentages and harvest, that Ra was trying to get across is that all is perfect all along, at all stages of development we are all the one infinite creator knowing itself, so really this sort of judgment, whether it comes from the bible or from certain metaphysics Ra described, is really rather uncalled for, but we had best just take care of where we are right at this moment, not always referring to it based on whether we're harvestable or not. Don't you detect a hint of fear in that? Hope this doesn't offend anyone, it's just my opinion on the subject.

[Monica]

...what it seems to me would be more beneficial is to think to yourself "is this really what I want to be doing right now? Does this resonate with what I am about at this moment, or am I slipping back into unawareness?" I guess that's what I was really trying to get at. But the main point, over and above any discussion of densities and percentages and harvest, that Ra was trying to get across is that all is perfect all along, at all stages of development we are all the one infinite creator knowing itself, so really this sort of judgment, whether it comes from the bible or from certain metaphysics Ra described, is really rather uncalled for, but we had best just take care of where we are right at this moment, not always referring to it based on whether we're harvestable or not. Don't you detect a hint of fear in that?

I agree...asking ourselves whether this is what we really want to be doing, or are we slipping back into unawareness...seems a much more productive thing to do, than fretting about whether we're harvestable or not, which is akin to Christians worrying about whether they are 'saved' or not...decidedly fear-based.

[βαθμιαίος]

But the main point, over and above any discussion of densities and percentages and harvest, that Ra was trying to get across is that all is perfect all along, at all stages of development we are all the one infinite creator knowing itself, so really this sort of judgment, whether it comes from the bible or from certain metaphysics Ra described, is really rather uncalled for, but we had best just take care of where we are right at this moment, not always referring to it based on whether we're harvestable or not. Don't you detect a hint of fear in that?

Totally agree with everything you're saying. Just for fun, let's take it one step further and say that even worrying about whether we're harvestable or saved or negative is also perfect, though of course not very enjoyable (unless you're into that sort of thing.)

[Ali Quadir]

So what's wrong with the wargames?

I do not consider artificial computer agents conscious. And in the sense that you could consider them approaching consciousness it is their function to die in horrible ways and then to respawn and do it again. Happiness comes by finding our goal in life and achieving it. Happyness also comes from learning from defeat and finding better ways.

Some research indicated that it was tremendously pleasing for players to get themselves killed in multi player video games. It's like playing tag, chess and hide and go seek at the same time. The excitement and tension is the thrill of it, and then when it all goes bad and you get defeated by a skillful opponent in an ingenious way.. Then this grants satisfaction. Nothing is better than ALMOST getting the virtual job done. There are no negative consequences from losing a game. But there are positive consequences.

Not to mention the wonder that we have many people these days who don't think anything about having friends in other countries. Kids speak foreign languages and have a broad perception. They learn to handle money and other resources. They learn planning, quick reflexes and mouse eye coordination which comes in handy later on.

Games teach separation since you're an individual in a game world. But in the case of world of warcraft. Well. Unless you learn to work in a team. Unless you follow orders and learn to suggest alternatives in ways that the other players will listen to you. Well, you're not getting far are you?

I played wow a few years ago. One thing that I remember is a 13 year old kid who accidentally ended up in a guild filled with young adults. At first he had a hard time fitting in but he learned to give and take and from this giving and taking he matured. He found his place in an unusual setting for a 13 year old. And I believe he did well. The problem with kids often is that they are left to their own devices with parents that are too busy to be fully available. A safe virtual community can become a home to a kid. It's not perfect but often good none the less.

[Bring4th_Steve]

Games have certainly evolved to the point that we are now operating in "live" communities of other players, who are represented by avatars. The means in which the game is played doesn't seem to be the concern for me. I feel like the "intention" of my actions within the game is what truly makes the difference.

For instance, I could be of the mindset that I truly want the avatar I am fighting to suffer, because I know that a person is behind the avatar, and I would feel good if I defeated that person. Conversely, I could be of the mindset that should I destroy the avatar, I literally see the destruction as a group of animated pixels turning into a graphical pile of defeat, and my intention to get satisfaction by eliminating the graphic instead of causing pain to someone behind the graphic is truly where the difference lies.

After reading all of these posts and also what Q'uo had to say about video games, I definitely feel a lot more at ease about visiting my friend and blowing away a couple hundred animated soldiers on his XBox. Since I my intention is to experience enjoyment and to "veg" from a hard day of mental work, my actions seem to become nothing more than a time waster.

Regarding the 13 year old who found a community of real people, I feel the game in his case has served a different purpose than what I originally meant when I started to ask the question about games. For him, his intention was to give and take in an environment where he accepted socialism combined with animated game play. For him, the gameplay turned out to be a catalyst for growth. To me, that seems healthy as it proved to become yet another social channel to develop oneself. Had the little anecdote described the 13 year old as not getting enough attention at home and developing a passion to defeat others with an emotional attachment, then I would say that his experiences were more detrimental to growth, and would be a perfect example of how certain types of gameplay can have a negative impact on a person.

Great thoughts by everyone!

[3D Sunset]

A few years ago, I ventured onto Second Life (during its late infancy) and was truly impressed with the freedom of expression, thought, and frankly, polarity that was expressed there. I'm sure it's changed quite a bit technically, since then, mostly for the better, I expect. Although it is not a game, per se, in that there is no objective for winning (kinda like the real game we call "life"), it did deliver on the promise of its name, at least to me. It provides an opportunity to live a second life, more than vicariously, but less than physically, where you can build your own talents, make lasting friendships, communicate freely in an environment where opinions are more readily accepted, and in some way, experience things that you had never had the courage, time, money, or opportunity to before.

I went there fairly regularly for about three months, but stopped after I came to realize that it was filling a need for verbal expression that I was avoiding in my First Life. Once that realization struck me, I found that this tool was no longer needed by me, and I began addressing that need through my first life. So for me at least, it was a very positive experience and a tool that was actually part of my path that lead me here, but I no longer participate in it.

For those that haven't had the opportunity to explore this world, you may want to check it out. But be warned, it can be quite addictive, especially for those that tend toward isolation, but long for social connections. It can also take a moderate amount of time to get established, especially if you want it to be a free hobby, which is how I did it. I suspect this is still possible, but it can be time consuming to find ways to earn money to help you get established. You can easily find it through your favorite search engine or by going to the web site that you'd suspect. For those familiar with virtual gaming, it will be largely intuitive.

For those that have explored Second Life, or other similar virtual worlds, I'm interested in hearing about your experiences, likes, dislikes and thoughts. Aside from the graphics and openness of the architecture which allows almost limitless opportunities for creative expression, I was also impressed with the freedom that it provides everyone to express their true selves, be it in how they look, where they go, what they do (within certain fairly loose limits of socially acceptable behavior), and what they say. I also found that with the abilities to communicate telepathically, create thought forms, fly, etc, it was like a step toward a clumsy, virtual type of 4D experience.

Do any others have experience with Second Life? What did you think? Was it an overall positive, negative or neutral experience? Did it help you in your first life, or did it cause problems? Would you recommend it? What you change about it if you could? Do you feel that games like Second Life are useful tools for student of the LOO? Was it involved in your path toward LOO? If so how?

Any thoughts?

3D Sunset

[Sirius]

The developers intend you to kill your opponents. lets just say for instance your playing call of duty 4. Modern warfare.
The developers have made the game so that if you dont kill anybody, you dont get anywhere in the game, besides past training anyway. The point of the gam ein the broad respect of the army is to protect civvies. so in all of these respects playing that game is STO even though it is very close to the wars which are actually happening around the world today.

Nowadays we are getting games complicated enough like fallout 3 where you can actually have good or bad karma depending on the things you do. Although this system isnt balanced, you can complete a few quests and then pick pocket a million people and still have good karma lol in theory this game offers the choice of STS and STO. although a little flawed and due for improvment.

to bring it to a higher level.

World of Warcraft, you have your battle grounds. and 1 of them is Warsong Gulch (capture the flag) it is a 10 v 10 game alliance vs horde (humans, elves etc vs orcs, undead etc) You are fighting for your own Honour points, but also you are working together from others of your same side to come to the same end. STO.

The players we are killing though are actually other people playing the game, so now a soul is being infringed upon however this soul knows it has entered the battle ground and is expecting to fight, so you are npot upsetting that person reallly. so where does this leave us?

Games have thier plot lines, not made from your intention and you complete them for entertainment, Self love. It is just the way that this world works with so much violence around anyway, it makes sence for our own real world to be partly transported into the "virtual density" if you can accept the paraphrasing hehe

The one issue I have with playing games is that this time could be better spent helping other people/researching/meditating. Which then becomes STS becuase you are choosing your own entertainment as opposed to doing something useful and positive.

Love and Light,
Sirius

[Ali Quadir]

The players we are killing though are actually other people playing the game, so now a soul is being infringed upon however this soul knows it has entered the battle ground and is expecting to fight, so you are npot upsetting that person reallly. so where does this leave us?

Like I said, research indicates that players enjoy dying in video games. Actually even more than killing. This means that even defeat is entertainment to them. And that's logical, a game isn't enjoyable if there is no chance for defeat. There has to be a challenge this is the entertainment. So by defeating someone fairly you're actually helping them enjoy their game.

I'm not good at PvP. I just don't know how to do it. And in my defense I was a holy priest in wow But my girlfriend enjoys it tremendously. I asked her what she thinks is the best part. And she told me is that in PvP there is always the element of surprise, of chance you never know what's going to happen. While versus a computer opponent you know in advance what's going to happen.

No one gets hurt in a video game, even if you lose, you win, you went there for entertainment and you get entertained even if you lose the game. The point isn't winning or losing, it's enjoying yourself isn't it?

Going into an MMO game is joining a community, with all the dynamics confusions and beauty of real world communities. And this is fairly anonymous. So you get the full spectrum of human behavior without the shyness online. So it is a great place to learn about social interactions. Including apparently romance Multi player is always STO, unless you go there to troll and annoy players by cheating, by abusing program errors or insulting people in the chat. Playing the game as it's meant to be is never STS.

Also, it beats television.

[Sirius]

The players we are killing though are actually other people playing the game, so now a soul is being infringed upon however this soul knows it has entered the battle ground and is expecting to fight, so you are npot upsetting that person reallly. so where does this leave us?

Like I said, research indicates that players enjoy dying in video games. Actually even more than killing. This means that even defeat is entertainment to them. And that's logical, a game isn't enjoyable if there is no chance for defeat. There has to be a challenge this is the entertainment. So by defeating someone fairly you're actually helping them enjoy their game.

I'm not good at PvP. I just don't know how to do it. And in my defense I was a holy priest in wow But my girlfriend enjoys it tremendously. I asked her what she thinks is the best part. And she told me is that in PvP there is always the element of surprise, of chance you never know what's going to happen. While versus a computer opponent you know in advance what's going to happen.

No one gets hurt in a video game, even if you lose, you win, you went there for entertainment and you get entertained even if you lose the game. The point isn't winning or losing, it's enjoying yourself isn't it?

Going into an MMO game is joining a community, with all the dynamics confusions and beauty of real world communities. And this is fairly anonymous. So you get the full spectrum of human behavior without the shyness online. So it is a great place to learn about social interactions. Including apparently romance Multi player is always STO, unless you go there to troll and annoy players by cheating, by abusing program errors or insulting people in the chat. Playing the game as it's meant to be is never STS.

Also, it beats television.

woot I dont like dying personally, cos i got a hunter, so it comes often.

You thought about it longer than I did thanks

but the big point is time could be better spent elsewhere haah,

Love and Light

[sylverone]

Hello everyone! This discussion has some interesting points in it, so I thought I'd make my first forum post here. I guess I'll start by giving some alternate viewpoints concerning some things that have been said. Since I don't know how to quote people yet, I'll wing it.

>by Al Quadir
>I do not consider artificial computer agents conscious.

I think they might be. The artificial agents are us. I've been thinking about this for a while: when we play a video game or use our computer, are we not incarnating into that reality? Therefore, the mouse pointer on the computer, or the game character on a console has as much consciousness as we channel through it; just like we have the consciousness that our soul channels into/through us.

Perhaps I take the analogy too far, but would this mean that our lives here are only as real to the next level up as the video game characters' are to us? We play many games, in which these characters may die again and again, so that we may learn, just as we may have many incarnations here, so that our soul may learn. I'm not sure, but it's very interesting to think about. A video game is just another illusion within our illusion, which we may enter as freely as we entered this one.

>Al Quadir
>There are no negative consequences from losing a game. But there are
>positive consequences.

This is your perception, but I don't think it is shared by all. I've seen people go into rages because they lost a game, or were having difficulties with one. We determine the nature of our own consequences, I think. The choice of how to perceive things is always there. It's just another learning experience in the long run; I just want to provide an alternate perspective.

>Sirius
>The developers intend you to kill your opponents. lets just say for
> instance your playing call of duty 4. Modern warfare.
>The developers have made the game so that if you dont kill anybody,
>you dont get anywhere in the game, besides past training anyway. The
>point of the gam ein the broad respect of the army is to protect civvies. >so in all of these respects playing that game is STO even though it is
>very close to the wars which are actually happening around the world >today.

In real life soldiers fight to protect civilians, but I'm not sure that makes wars STO (in the short-term sense), and the game is just an imitation of those wars, made for entertainment. I don't think these things are really STO in nature. The way an individual chooses to interact with these circumstances is the STS/STO determiner.

Although I do keep coming back to one thing; isn't everything STO? After all, isn't "everything" the definition of Source/God/7th density, which/who is the purest STO?

Anyway, very neat discussion so far. We should all be able to gain something from this.

With everything,
sylverone

[Ali Quadir]

Welcome to the forum Sylverone.

>by Al Quadir
>I do not consider artificial computer agents conscious.

I think they might be. The artificial agents are us. I've been thinking about this for a while: when we play a video game or use our computer, are we not incarnating into that reality? Therefore, the mouse pointer on the computer, or the game character on a console has as much consciousness as we channel through it; just like we have the consciousness that our soul channels into/through us.

Well, they're not. I've built a few of them. Artificial intelligence is one of my joys in life. And they're scripts that respond to variables. Not souls experiencing a body. You're no script file I ever wrote..

Some materialists hold the view that the human consciousness is nothing more than a script with variables. These people usually don't even understand that the hard problem of consciousness is a real problem.

Perhaps I take the analogy too far, but would this mean that our lives here are only as real to the next level up as the video game characters' are to us? We play many games, in which these characters may die again and again, so that we may learn, just as we may have many incarnations here, so that our soul may learn. I'm not sure, but it's very interesting to think about. A video game is just another illusion within our illusion, which we may enter as freely as we entered this one.

The similarities between life and video games are due to the fact that video games are modeled after life. A painting I make of you is modeled after you. Yet I doubt you would consider it to have any other kinship to you. Why would you consider video game entities to be different from figures in a painting?

You should entertain these analogies. They sharpen the mind and the imagination. But I doubt you should take this particular train of thought very seriously.

>Al Quadir
>There are no negative consequences from losing a game. But there are
>positive consequences.

This is your perception, but I don't think it is shared by all. I've seen people go into rages because they lost a game, or were having difficulties with one. We determine the nature of our own consequences, I think. The choice of how to perceive things is always there. It's just another learning experience in the long run; I just want to provide an alternate perspective.

I appreciate the effort. However it seems to me that those people who fly into fits of rage upon losing a game. Really... REALLY need the practice at losing games preferably behind some inanimate object that doesn't feel the negative consequences of their wrath. And instead follows the rules of it's logic to their inevitable conclusions.

If you lose a video game that is winnable and not purely random at it. Then there is no one to blame but you. It is your actions that cause winning or losing. Anger isn't going to make a difference. Perseverance and insight is.

The world isn't without the ability to lose. What if we lose? Are we going to fly of the handle and act like a moron because we never even had the experience of losing something as trivial as a game? Let me remind you that real world losses are immeasurably more painful than having your nightelf die on you.

[airwaves]

Let me remind you that real world losses are immeasurably more painful than having your nightelf die on you.

This is very true. Beyond that I lol'ed very hard because I play a bit of wow from time to time.

[ayadew]

[Hkelukka]

I apologize if im posting out of turn but after staring at that image of what seems like an holding a ... sort of I feel a strong urge and a desire to respond. If what I say is offensive or out of turn then please ignore it. I would offer a few comments and hope they lead somewhere.

And they're scripts that respond to variables. Not souls experiencing a body. You're no script file I ever wrote..

I would ask if it is possible, from your point of view, that there is a higher self not directly linked to you (not granting you knowledge or help directly but working with others). If that higher self then, in turn, influence your actions when your actions relate to something you are working on. If you are making a cup for a friend can that friends higher self guide your hands while you are making a gift for that friend? So can the higher self of an entity guide you and help you along the path of developement that that entity desires, if you are willing to serve?

If this is possible as it is to the best of my knowledge, then i suggest that it also be possible that the "soul" of an limited AI can quide your hands as you work at it. Giving you just the right tools that can give birth to an entity along a specific path of developement. We were perhaps simple programs when we were 2D, yet we evolved, are the computer programs of a 2D nature (Eat Survive Reproduce) all that dis-similar from what we were? Through the virtue of a higher self guiding the hands of the past as they work on the being as it matures to the present your hands can indeed be a part of the greater sub-logos as it creates a new generation for 3rd D as you move to the 4th D. In my eyes this can be our parting gift as we move on, a new form of life?

Let me remind you that real world losses are immeasurably more painful than having your nightelf die on you.

Why? I would ask if it is that a loss close to you in your level of understanding is more painful than a loss far away. If all experiences inherantly lead towards a reunion and as such all actions are of equal worth if they lead a soul along their chosen path, then, is it not possible that for a soul that so desires the loss of a "nightelf" would be more painful than the loss of say, their sibling? If our world is an illusion as seems to be the common understanding here then why would an illusionary loss hurt more than an illusionary loss in an illusionary world? In fact why should it hurt at all if its nature as an illusionary transitory experience is that it serves only to polarize us in our experience as what we wish to be in relation to the experience? It can hurt if we wish to use that catalyst to further our evolution and it can also not hurt.

I think they might be. The artificial agents are us. I've been thinking about this for a while: when we play a video game or use our computer, are we not incarnating into that reality? Therefore, the mouse pointer on the computer, or the game character on a console has as much consciousness as we channel through it; just like we have the consciousness that our soul channels into/through us.

If the holographic theory of existence, that what we focus our effort on will slowly become us is true then yes. To an extent at least. As i see it our consiousness is a blob, sort of like a ball of goo on a table, we can "move" it or "focus" it on something. There are different "items" on the table each representing something we can combine with other items so we can "learn". Other blobs are there as well, consider a computer charachter as an "item" if we focus on it and cover it in our "consiousness blob" it becomes a part of us and while inside us it can move just as we do and become concious (for a moment). When it drops and we move somewhere else does it still retain its ability, perhapse a part of us has covered its surface and slowly begins to move it as well. Us enginges of creation, multicolored blobs moving around on a table slowly turning things concious ^_^;

In closing i would like to ask a simple question.

If you understand how a human works, from the deepest level of its existence to the highest know precicely how he is programmed, know all the choices he can make and all the reactions that will happen, that nothing in his actions will be a surprise to you then does the man become a machine and thus not alive? If you understand something, a computer program for example, does that computer program then become not alive? Through simply understanding its workings does it suddenly have no inherant value? Inhreant in that the value is there regardless of what other beings reflect on it.

I would like to add that this is a dangerous door we wish to open in our path. Do we wish to see things that we can understand as not being sentient simply through the virtue of us understanding or "having created" them. Then we downplay the importance of the logos working through us to create a new cycle of life. That leads to a potential situation where 3rd D can abuse 2nd D having "created" it and thus understands it (atlantis and its creation of new life beneath it and lacking the understanding of creation and going biiig-baka-boom) Or orionites creating a slave planet and using the same argument for the proccess, they can understand the dna, the programming of a lower being thus the lower being is only a machine? Wisdom, temperance and love is called for here methinks. What can be alive, even if only barely should not be considered otherwise.

Thank you for allowing me to say my point of view.

[Ali Quadir]

I apologize if im posting out of turn but after staring at that image of what seems like an holding a ... sort of I feel a strong urge and a desire to respond. If what I say is offensive or out of turn then please ignore it. I would offer a few comments and hope they lead somewhere.

Lol Actually it's an undead priest holding a gnomish death knight if I'm not mistaking... You can see the big girls bone sticking out here and there. In spite of this it's apparently a populair choice. You might have noticed the references to a particular popular video game. These are fan impressions of the characters involved.

The image is particularly interesting because the cute innocence of the gnomish girl is contrasted by her role as a death knight which is the exact opposite of cute and innocent, while the undead horror is actually expressing the symbology of a holy priest, again a sharp contrast.

I think what you're saying is that by identification we can become one with our game avatars. I think that's the ultimate goal of any game. However even when that ultimate game experience happens. And sometimes they indeed approach it when story visuals and character building come together. Even then you are not the character of a game world. You are a person outside the gameworld fully immersed in a character in the game world.

You might forget that you are outside of that world. As in restrict your consciousness purely to the game world. But you will not lose your material component. Your mind will always be separate from the game world as it is not a part of the game world but a visitor in it. Basically you don't stop being a player when you become your avatar.

So total loss, as in death is an impossibility. Your health and wellbeing are guaranteed to be unaffected by the game. (At least when played in moderation ) And you will always be able to stand up and walk away from it.

In real life, you cannot stand up and walk away. If you get hurt then that hurt is all there is, it is not an experience within an experience, it is THE experience. There is a special case where we play war games like paintball or live roleplay or some kind of war based reenactment. (Dodge ball?) In those situations the excitement is real, the "death" is struggled to avoid, but when it comes you just snap out of it and walk out of the game area to await the next round. Even then the immersion in the illusion will not be complete.

This is not to say that there is no level of us outside of the real world. However we usually have no awareness of it. And therefore our identification is absolute, and unlike a video game character which is much weaker. So you do not get hurt in a video game.


Now... Let me try to go where you were going. Because I do hear you. There is a certain analogy between the worlds. What would be needed to accomplish this transfer.

We would need to become fully ignorant of our outside reality. As in we'd need a veil of forgetting as we have in this reality. We'd either need a very high bandwidth connection to our avatar and our world. Meaning lots of detail. Or we'd need to restrict consciousness to a lower level to stop it from instantly figuring out the illusion through the lack of or errors in the details. (Which is what happens if our spiritual practices eventually give us 4d glimpses on our 3d world)

Basically you'd need to do what you did to enter this 3d existence.

The other way round you say that the soul of an artificially intelligent agent or an AI might be guiding the hands of the programmer to create himself. Now this is the correct way how our higher selves connected to this world and created these bodies for us to incarnate into. So that notion is certainly applicable.

However, game state can be represented in bits and bytes. There are only a finite amount of states. Therefore when a game is compiled ALL seemingly infinite but still finite amount of states the game can contain are already defined at that moment. The player has a lot of freedom. But he can never ever step outside that finite amount of possibilities that is defined in the games logic. Since the games state transfers are determined only by itself it is unaffectable from the outside. The ways modern computers have around this are input devices like keyboards mouse and basically all other IO devices.

So you'd need a bridge between the soul and the device. A way for the device to be affected by the soul that is not part of its definition. To put it bluntly you'd need a soul IO port.


Now obviously the two directions as you know are the same principle observed from different angles.

We are all that is. Or we are the player.
We identify with a persona inside of the IAM... We identify with a persona inside of a game.
We disconnect our experience of the higher self. We forget that we are playing a game.

Now the last point. Forgetting that we are playing a game. Does not happen. Therefore killing someone in a game with a triple spin combo followed by sending in the dragons and then jumping on the bits. Is likely to be entertaining to the victim. Since it is entertaining and he does not get hurt in any way. Players try to make a show of this. And hopefully the "victim" gets to repay the favor shortly after. This is an idealized representation but worst case we have to deal with bruised egos.

Causing connections sometimes between gamers who are not on the same faction who cannot speak to each other. Who can only basically kill each other and make friendly or impolite gestures. Both came to do exactly that. Both will not be hurt when their character dies. And both expect and desire the other person to not be a pacifist so the fight may be epic bloody and loads of fun. However the opposite also happens, players of opposing factions do form unspoken alliances and help each other out. Sometimes creating something approaching a relationship. "I know this avatar, he is friendly and helpful if we show to be friendly to him."

In "real" life. It would not be fun at all. With the exception of adepts we are too connected to our real life personas. Only a few of us can be killed and comment on how the killer did this particularly skillfully. Because in real life its not fun....

The difference is psychologically speaking being on a different level.


I think you're not a game player... Yet you seem to know exactly how this "real" world was formed. You seem to know exactly how we are connected into it. Because when you asked about the game you asked about fairly advanced occult principles. So I am glad you joined in the conversation and put it on a different level

[Sirius]

I apologize if im posting out of turn but after staring at that image of what seems like an holding a ... sort of I feel a strong urge and a desire to respond. If what I say is offensive or out of turn then please ignore it. I would offer a few comments and hope they lead somewhere.

And they're scripts that respond to variables. Not souls experiencing a body. You're no script file I ever wrote..

I would ask if it is possible, from your point of view, that there is a higher self not directly linked to you (not granting you knowledge or help directly but working with others). If that higher self then, in turn, influence your actions when your actions relate to something you are working on. If you are making a cup for a friend can that friends higher self guide your hands while you are making a gift for that friend? So can the higher self of an entity guide you and help you along the path of developement that that entity desires, if you are willing to serve?

If this is possible as it is to the best of my knowledge, then i suggest that it also be possible that the "soul" of an limited AI can quide your hands as you work at it. Giving you just the right tools that can give birth to an entity along a specific path of developement. We were perhaps simple programs when we were 2D, yet we evolved, are the computer programs of a 2D nature (Eat Survive Reproduce) all that dis-similar from what we were? Through the virtue of a higher self guiding the hands of the past as they work on the being as it matures to the present your hands can indeed be a part of the greater sub-logos as it creates a new generation for 3rd D as you move to the 4th D. In my eyes this can be our parting gift as we move on, a new form of life?

Let me remind you that real world losses are immeasurably more painful than having your nightelf die on you.

Why? I would ask if it is that a loss close to you in your level of understanding is more painful than a loss far away. If all experiences inherantly lead towards a reunion and as such all actions are of equal worth if they lead a soul along their chosen path, then, is it not possible that for a soul that so desires the loss of a "nightelf" would be more painful than the loss of say, their sibling? If our world is an illusion as seems to be the common understanding here then why would an illusionary loss hurt more than an illusionary loss in an illusionary world? In fact why should it hurt at all if its nature as an illusionary transitory experience is that it serves only to polarize us in our experience as what we wish to be in relation to the experience? It can hurt if we wish to use that catalyst to further our evolution and it can also not hurt.

I think they might be. The artificial agents are us. I've been thinking about this for a while: when we play a video game or use our computer, are we not incarnating into that reality? Therefore, the mouse pointer on the computer, or the game character on a console has as much consciousness as we channel through it; just like we have the consciousness that our soul channels into/through us.

If the holographic theory of existence, that what we focus our effort on will slowly become us is true then yes. To an extent at least. As i see it our consiousness is a blob, sort of like a ball of goo on a table, we can "move" it or "focus" it on something. There are different "items" on the table each representing something we can combine with other items so we can "learn". Other blobs are there as well, consider a computer charachter as an "item" if we focus on it and cover it in our "consiousness blob" it becomes a part of us and while inside us it can move just as we do and become concious (for a moment). When it drops and we move somewhere else does it still retain its ability, perhapse a part of us has covered its surface and slowly begins to move it as well. Us enginges of creation, multicolored blobs moving around on a table slowly turning things concious ^_^;

In closing i would like to ask a simple question.

If you understand how a human works, from the deepest level of its existence to the highest know precicely how he is programmed, know all the choices he can make and all the reactions that will happen, that nothing in his actions will be a surprise to you then does the man become a machine and thus not alive? If you understand something, a computer program for example, does that computer program then become not alive? Through simply understanding its workings does it suddenly have no inherant value? Inhreant in that the value is there regardless of what other beings reflect on it.

I would like to add that this is a dangerous door we wish to open in our path. Do we wish to see things that we can understand as not being sentient simply through the virtue of us understanding or "having created" them. Then we downplay the importance of the logos working through us to create a new cycle of life. That leads to a potential situation where 3rd D can abuse 2nd D having "created" it and thus understands it (atlantis and its creation of new life beneath it and lacking the understanding of creation and going biiig-baka-boom) Or orionites creating a slave planet and using the same argument for the proccess, they can understand the dna, the programming of a lower being thus the lower being is only a machine? Wisdom, temperance and love is called for here methinks. What can be alive, even if only barely should not be considered otherwise.

Thank you for allowing me to say my point of view.

Mega post! and yours also sylverone (just to note, to quote somebody press the reply button on the bottom right corner of the post you want to quote.)

You got me thinking with the beggining of it. Alot of sources suggest that the actions we take in life are predetermined, ie planned out in advance by our higher selves. the selection of parents/ place/time of birth etc etc
at a glance this would seem like single line fate, of which free will takes no part.

One concept I learnt from one of many Nostradamus books, was the idea of a fate tree. this is where your single line fate continues but reaches a choice, and then branches off in 2 separate ways. each path continues to reach choices and splitting, the end result instead of a line is a bit like a tree with noi leaves. so if this tree is what our higher selves create, and we make the choices to go through it. It makes our higher selves the creators of our lifetime variables. This makes life remarkably like a programme. however a programme needs the end user conciousness to make it function. ie a user has to press the buttons to make it do something. In this respect still life seems like a programme, as life would require our inputs into which choices we make and therefore progress through the life.

The only difference between World of Warcraft and real life is that real life is alot more intense and contains almost innumerable variables within each variable, which would take a millions of years to write code for.

Bill Hicks was famous for saying "life is just a ride..."

As for creating a programme and the sentiment towards that. I did some programming at college and I did make a few programmes, like hangman and things nothing complex and all in VB6/.NET. after finishing ewach programme I had an immense sence of acomplishment due to the ammount of work and thinking that actually had to go into it. each with it's own quirks to differ from every body elses in class, it was common for me to be proud of my creations.

I read something once in A Course in Miracles which stated the difference between creating and making. Making is the action of "creating something to solve a problem" in the illusion there are problems which "dont exist" so they technically never created. therefore given the term "made"
And creations is the making something for no purpose. such as Art or Music if the artist is not a materialist looking only for something to sell.

I hope it makes sence, I'm just off to bed

Love and Light

---

Unfortunately I don't like the conclusions of my above post, but for now this is where the yellow brick thought trail leads

Some more Love and Light

[sylverone]

I think what you're saying is that by identification we can become one with our game avatars. ... Even then you are not the character of a game world. You are a person outside the gameworld fully immersed in a character in the game world.

This is not my intended meaning... I'm not sure how to communicate my meaning, however, so try to bear with me. I'll try to clarify as best I can. It may be necessary for me to open a thread elsewhere to explain the nature of my own illusion and how I've come to explain/interpret it. After all, we each create our own illusion.

... Your mind will always be separate from the game world as it is not a part of the game world but a visitor in it. Basically you don't stop being a player when you become your avatar.

I'm not sure we stop being 4D/5D/6D when we enter this reality. Remember that all things are simultaneous. Time is an illusion that does not exist in this form within the higher realms (as far as we've been told). Just as we do not "stop" being a player when we play a game, I don't think our soul "stops" being our soul when we incarnate. It projects itself into a "machine" body, which doesn't seem all that different from picking up the controller and projecting our will into a video game through it; we need not stop being 3D to do so. Maybe our brain is somewhat like a switchboard, a "controller" of sorts if you will. The 7th chakra is there, through which "higher consciousness" projects into us.

In real life, you cannot stand up and walk away. If you get hurt then that hurt is all there is, it is not an experience within an experience, it is THE experience. There is a special case where we play war games like paintball or live roleplay or some kind of war based reenactment. (Dodge ball?) In those situations the excitement is real, the "death" is struggled to avoid, but when it comes you just snap out of it and walk out of the game area to await the next round. Even then the immersion in the illusion will not be complete.

However, when we die, doesn't our soul "stand up and walk away?" On that level our soul is not directly hurt by this (although our soul may feel compassion for us), any more than we are hurt from losing a game. This is the essence of what I am trying to say. The perspective I'm using (or trying to use) is not centralized around "us", so to speak. Individualization is present on all levels, in some form or another.

Also, dodgeball is fun! My favorite game from when I was younger.

Now... Let me try to go where you were going. Because I do hear you. There is a certain analogy between the worlds. What would be needed to accomplish this transfer.

We would need to become fully ignorant of our outside reality. As in we'd need a veil of forgetting as we have in this reality.

This is present, I think. Our higher self is aware of us, even though we have forgotten our higher self, just as we are aware of our "video game self", even though it is certainly not aware of us. The consciousness that we channel into the game when we press the "left" button "forgets us" when it reaches the character; the character just moves to the left, no questions asked. But it is certainly acting based on our will.

Basically you'd need to do what you did to enter this 3d existence.

You seem to imply that this is difficult. It may be complex, but not necessarily difficult. The exact mechanics of how one might wave to their best friend, involving muscle movements and complex nerve/brain interactions is very complex, but also very simple to do. To incarnate into 3D reality may actually be almost as simple as picking up a video game controller, at least in a relative sense.

The other way round you say that the soul of an artificially intelligent agent or an AI might be guiding the hands of the programmer to create himself. Now this is the correct way how our higher selves connected to this world and created these bodies for us to incarnate into. So that notion is certainly applicable.

This may be true, but was not the approach I was taking... My perspective is that our bodies are by nature 3rd Density, and were formed in 3rd Density to operate here. Our soul projects and in a sense "dwells within" this body, a machine made to receive it. Our body cannot live without a soul (without that "spark" the body dies; I remember reading that this is the cause of some spontaneous abortions and such - the soul decides to retract from the fetus when life circumstances change - perhaps if that incarnation is no longer needed), and the soul cannot live in 3rd Density without a body.

However, game state can be represented in bits and bytes. There are only a finite amount of states. Therefore when a game is compiled ALL seemingly infinite but still finite amount of states the game can contain are already defined at that moment.

This is true. This is a limitation of such crude "artificial" reality. Another limitation is that the "self" we project into the video game character cannot directly "graduate" into the next level directly (ie awaken to "our level" without having to die, win, or otherwise "cease consciousness"). We are capable of this, body and all, because we exist within the "natural illusion", which is all-inclusive. Unfortunately, Mario and Luigi cannot "ride the wave" as we have the opportunity to; at least not as we currently perceive reality. Maybe we're wrong, and they do, hehe. ^_^

So you'd need a bridge between the soul and the device. A way for the device to be affected by the soul that is not part of its definition. To put it bluntly you'd need a soul IO port.

The controller serves this purpose just fine. When we press buttons on the controller, is this not under the direction of our soul? Our soul is having a direct influence from within the game, by channeling through us.

That's what we're doing all the time, I think; we are just channeling our souls. If the video game character "channels us" by receiving our commands, it is indirectly channeling our soul. If we follow this thought train to a natural conclusion, we are all indirectly channeling God-Source all the time. When the energy channel emerges into this body, it produces a "singularity of consciousness" - an individualization. However, the energy comes from a place that is as self-conscious as we are. I think this is because the dimensions/densities might create "pinch points", and this is why individualization happens on specific levels and doesn't seem to blend between them so much (the higher levels may be different, though). These last parts are purely my speculation though.

Forgetting that we are playing a game. Does not happen. Therefore killing someone in a game with a triple spin combo followed by sending in the dragons and then jumping on the bits. Is likely to be entertaining to the victim. Since it is entertaining and he does not get hurt in any way. Players try to make a show of this. And hopefully the "victim" gets to repay the favor shortly after. This is an idealized representation but worst case we have to deal with bruised egos.

I think we do forget, but only for minute instances. For tiny, moments, at least, it is possible to completely forget that we are separate from the video game character (this is my personal experience, at least). At these moments, I forget that I am pressing buttons to control the character, and I perform complex actions withing the game without thinking about it.

In "real" life. It would not be fun at all. With the exception of adepts we are too connected to our real life personas. Only a few of us can be killed and comment on how the killer did this particularly skillfully. Because in real life its not fun....

Some people enjoy war - occasionally even the people who are fighting it! History tells of such people; they say there is a thrill some people get from war that they come to love. They enjoy it because of that chance of death or pain - just like you were saying players enjoy that possibility in games. What you have said is not only limited to games, although it is true that most people do not enjoy pain.

I think you're not a game player... Yet you seem to know exactly how this "real" world was formed. You seem to know exactly how we are connected into it. Because when you asked about the game you asked about fairly advanced occult principles. So I am glad you joined in the conversation and put it on a different level

What makes you think I don't play games? I'm very curious about this one. I do indeed play games; I have gained multiple of my spiritual principles directly and indirectly through these games. I will not argue that they cannot be useful; we are certainly agreed there.

Occult principles? Hmm... I'm not surprised, I suppose, that the things I have learned on my own path match up with occult knowledge, but I wasn't expecting that! Thanks for that; this is the first time I've had outside indication that someone might have come to similar conclusions to mine! Much of these principles hve come to me rapid-fire in the last 2 years Anyway, if we are not meeting minds yet, I think further in-depth discussion should wait until I've posted my introductory thread. There, I will try to provide a good description of my beliefs and how I perceive reality; hopefully, if I can give you enough info to "peer into my illusion", you may be able to understand my perspective on this, if you do not already. Then we can continue a back-and-forth discussion there. I must be careful, since I have ended up in discussions like this while I ignored the discussions of others in the same thread. I'm not so likely to get so over-focused nowadays, but as you can see, I tend to be a person of many words. Very fun discussion so far!

As i see it our consiousness is a blob, sort of like a ball of goo on a table, we can "move" it or "focus" it on something. There are different "items" on the table each representing something we can combine with other items so we can "learn". Other blobs are there as well, consider a computer charachter as an "item" if we focus on it and cover it in our "consiousness blob" it becomes a part of us and while inside us it can move just as we do and become concious (for a moment). When it drops and we move somewhere else does it still retain its ability, perhapse a part of us has covered its surface and slowly begins to move it as well. Us enginges of creation, multicolored blobs moving around on a table slowly turning things concious ^_^;

For reference, this is VERY similar to my view of things; I believe that when we pick up an object it becomes as much a part of us as our fingers are. Our will flows out and into it. I visualize it as a sort of "cord" made of light, through which a person receives consciousness from God-Source. This cord extends "down", through our higher selves, and into us, where it flows outward into our body. When I affect something with my body, this conscious Source-connection flows into whatever I am affecting; if I pick up a shovel, there is a flow of conscious energy running from Source, through my higher selves, into me, and out through my arms, into the shovel; thus, for the time that I am using it, that shovel is as alive as the rest of my body, in a certain sense. To me, this has been a beautiful and revealing concept. As far as my own reality is concerned, it has proven accurate so far. When we play a video game or use the computer, I believe that it is no different; our consciousness flows into the machine in a way that is determined by its physical structure and programming, and into the game character or mouse pointer. At that point the character or mouse pointer is a part of us just as the shovel was. Right now, my consciousness (the "beam of light" or "spark of life") is being projected through my hands, into the keyboard, through wires and programs, and into a text box, and will soon be posted, when I project my consciousness through my left mouse button and "Post Reply".

!Viola! I have just incarnated into the internet, and then promptly left! This is the essence of what I mean. This line of thought simply amazes me.

Another interesting example: When someone shoots someone else this consciousness goes through the gun and through the bullet, then affects another human in a rather violent way. The thing is, that people know this on a conceptual level; this is why cops arrest the shooter and not the bullet or the gun. In the end, however, the consciousness all originates at Source; they may as well arrest God!

Hmm... I had better stop. I don't want to end up posting the equivalent of a small novel...

With everything,
sylverone

[Hkelukka]

Firstly i wish to deeply apologize for the lack of elequance in my communication to convey the ideas I feel. No words i have could adequately convey what i see, i will however try.

In real life, you cannot stand up and walk away.

I disagree, only difference between "real life" and "computer life" is the depth of the forgetting. Walking away is equally difficult if the depth of forgetting about legs and as such abilities to walk away is equal. Due to the smaller amount of time the mind spends in a game walking away is easier, if the time spent in a game would approach decades or centuries walking away would become intensly difficult without outside interferance. If i understand your opinion sufficiently well it seems you hold this world to be real and a computer world to be an illusion. From this stand point your view is perfectly reasonable and indeed true. IF you however realise that this level is an "illusion" or a dream. Simply a long running complex dream. It may seem real and scary but still just a dream. The computer world is equally just a dream, dreamt up by programmers, designers, graphicians and so forth, still just a dream. Less magnificent and colourful than this world which is in turn always less magnificent and colourful than the one which dreams up us and so forth. Would you miss the colour ghrobl if you never heard of it, know of it or understand it. IF you have no concept with which to describe the colour then it does not exist for you. Your understanding or perception of that colour brings it into your illusion. If you move yourself to the world of a computer game, move your soul there and entirely forget all above it you would not miss it either and it would, for a moment, be as real to you as this world in which you have entirely forgotten the world above and its colour ghrobl. What ever that colour is. Reality is entirely in the eye of the beholder. If you consider a computer world a illusionary world that has no inherant soul other than what is projected into it, you are entirely correct, do you however have inherant value other than what the logos projects into you. Were you removed entirely from the logos and as such made into your own entity with no ties to anything anywhere would you survive or would you evaporate?

Basically you'd need to do what you did to enter this 3d existence.

Exactly, if the illusionary computer world becomes the real computer world when we forget it is just an illusion. Does this world then become the real world when we forget it is just an illusion. Both of these seem true from this perspective, the only difference is that one we know to be the illusion (computer) the other we DONT know to be the illusion ("real" world). Thus you would say that it becomes illusionary when you lack knowledge and real when you have knowledge, or in another way.

The world vanishes when i dont know of it
The world appears when i know of it.

I would posit that this can lead to a path where the self is seen as the only arbiter of real or unreal and the value of the other self, in this case, the computer charachter, is seen as outside the scope of the question.

IF this reasoning can be followed far enough would it mean that a creature in a higher octave entirely can say you dont exists because you are its daydream and as such your opinions are invalid? If the creature in another octave knows you are an illusion and he is not? Then what of an octave higher than him and on. This would lead to an eternal rat-race to the "highest" octave which would then be "real" and all others illusionary. The alternative to this would be to see every act in itself and every creator, actor, co-creator, reactor (re-acting to the actions of others) as inherantly the entirety of creation in every octave and equally as worth everything. The practical application of this, i feel, would be to feel, and if that isnt practical then to say something like this.

"Dear computer game characther, i wish to experience your illusion for a moment so that i may share, enjoy, learn and better understand myself. If you accept then please let me proceed, if you dont accept then i ask the higher powers in the universe to prevent me from playing"

This ofcourse is entirely just one way of explaining it, a crude way of putting into words an STO idea of approaching each aspect of the creator as the creator, each other-self and indeed other-thing as the whole of the self and the "thing". The idea, the emotion of approaching the computer game as a sacrament, can go a long way as far as i feel is true.

However, game state can be represented in bits and bytes. There are only a finite amount of states.

Only if there are only a finite amount of you's to begin with, if there is an infinite amount of you's through to an infinite amount of universes where you exists, then the any one choice becomes an infinite amount of choices due to minute variances slowly expanding to infinite. If you have more of you than a single of you, in fact an infinite amount of you's then the programmings you make and thus the amount of choices those programmings can make in a now infinite amount of programmable choices is also infinite. Thus it is possible to suggest that an AI that would reach conciousness would also reach into all these pareller universes through its now concious self that would eventually reach a higher self and then join back with the logos thus being in existence when you were created in any of the infinite spaces and thus lead to the AI being born in a finite world, perhaps that which you consider to be "you".

Or, an inifnite coder/Co-creator can make an infinite program that will reach a higher self-logos that exists before you were born to guide your hands when you were giving birth to itself. Thus the time it was made is also the time it makes itself and guides itself in a holographic all at once existing universe. I would advice a deep reverence for the proccess of creation, even in the simplest of codes.

Forgetting that we are playing a game. Does not happen.

I disagree, i understand how this can be the preception of the one you are now. And in your perception it is undoutably right and true. I would not hold a generalistion and say that it is not possible for a being to forget. Difficult perhaps but not possible.

Because in real life its not fun....

If you are an illusion in a world where there is no time, no permanent loss, no danger, no hurry to a specific goal and love in every single action at every single level. May i ask, why not?

I think you're not a game player... Yet you seem to know exactly how this "real" world was formed. You seem to know exactly how we are connected into it. Because when you asked about the game you asked about fairly advanced occult principles. So I am glad you joined in the conversation and put it on a different level

I am infact, i started at age 3 with Shadow Warrior or Shadow ninja or some such for C64, The list of games i have played could fill a small book. Ranging from Street Fighter 2 and its various awesomly bloody finishing moves.. or was that Mortal Combat... Anyway, reaching up to the types of games such as StarControl 2 where a freedom and individual liberty oriented captain needs to make choices and help other entities in a galaxy and eventually win freedom from a cruel opressor who considers all other life forms slaves... Sounds familiar. I'm also intensly interested in AI, especially strong AI, Superhuman AI, AI-Human hybrids, Cyborg, Biotech and all that. Also, Eve-Online. I'll try to keep this conversation in topic however. I Would add that the real in depth nitty gritty of how this world was formed is only known by the logos itself, that being everywhere, every table, every item, being, co-creator, self or anything else that exists is a walking manual on how this "game" works. All those who desire to know how it works only need to learn how to interpret those squiggly lines known as words and the answer will eventually be known, it takes a bit of reading and experience. It is there tho.

The only difference between World of Warcraft and real life is that real life is alot more intense and contains almost innumerable variables within each variable, which would take a millions of years to write code for.

Take an mental image of an octave beyond ours which creates our world. Their world has 10 main colours, ours has 3 i believe, and theirs has 50 dimensions, ours has 3+1. Now, imagine that they have done all the things their 50 dimensions and 10 colours can do. They have two choices, they can add colours or dimensions and thus go an octave higher in creation. Or they can reduce colours and dimensions and thus go an octave lower. Ofcourse this is a questionable metaphor since octave is not a determining factor of colours and dimensions but a different level of creation, since you however would describe a computer game as being undoutably 2+1 (2 dimension, flat screens plus time) and less than 3 colours (as we see them, no screen can reproduce ALL the colours that we can see due to chemical limitations in monitors). So they are in a creation that has "less" than us yet offers a unique chance of learning, ours isnt a 2+1 so we cant experience the specific limitations of that dimensipon. So, within our world view to program a world such as us would likely be impossible tho not certain on this point, from our point of view it is easy to be the logos of a world below us, thus by the act of making a computer game, the longer it runs and more complex it is the more likely that it will develop a 3d similar to us and merge with ours, perhapse we are still just a dot, a single byte in a greater logos and we will "merge" with their logos in a 2d world. Either way it is beyond my words to describe wha twould happen as it is immaterial to the self the self being the prime engine of creation. Limitations offer a boundary to creation and thus a new area of creation just as no limitations do. Both offer a unique world and as such our unique rules are a restriction on a higher set of rules and a world we create could be a restriction and make a "lesser" world, of equal value in itself.

after finishing ewach programme I had an immense sence of acomplishment due to the ammount of work and thinking that actually had to go into it. each with it's own quirks to differ from every body elses in class, it was common for me to be proud of my creations.

This can be a creative self reaction at happiness at an accomplishment. Ego at happiness over the accoplishment (reacting to the pleasure-pain of good grades good work /bad grades bad work)
It can be STS for its "i did better than the rest, nah nah naa"
STO for its "I did good, i can now help others learn this better, yay"

Simplifications ofcourse but hopefully somewhat helpful.

I read something once in A Course in Miracles which stated the difference between creating and making. Making is the action of "creating something to solve a problem" in the illusion there are problems which "dont exist" so they technically never created. therefore given the term "made"
And creations is the making something for no purpose. such as Art or Music if the artist is not a materialist looking only for something to sell.

That only applies if there is such a thing as purpose in the world. OR if all of creation NEEDS to go in a single direction, if there is no point to creation except the act itself then all problems are made to experience creation. A creative way of making a solution to a problem is an act of creation, a repeative way of solving a problem is the act of making. Making bread VS creating bread. I feel that the answer isnt a simple "is this for a purpose or not" since there is inherantly no purpose as such other than what your heart desires. I would say the definition of creation and making is simple. "Are you in the moment?" if not its not creation, its re-creation, its not acting its re-acting, some need to react or reflect the light of others for there to be STO, some need to be low for an act of going higher to be possible. So not being in the moment gives others the "right" to reflect off you and see their own creation, you act as a mirror for their creation. When you create, others (table, spoon, flour and other things like that) will act as your reflector, or in other words their sub-logos acts as a background against which you can view yourself/your creation. So when you conciously create you are a creator, when react you are a co-creator, both are neccesary yet what is important is what your heart tells.

To put this in a perspective, the world is a ballroom, do you wish to dance, watch, play, or look in through the windows?

I visualize it as a sort of "cord" made of light, through which a person receives consciousness from God-Source. This cord extends "down", through our higher selves, and into us, where it flows outward into our body.

I would add a small notion to this.

Source "beams" to higher self, that into you, where it flows out into your body and from that which you do. (a computer game for example). I would however add that the god soul also beams to the computer game through the higher self to you and so on, you are just one step in this path through to the every aspect, from the computer game to a smaller aspect and so forth. At another time i can explain what this means in more depth, right now i feel this post is already probably too long.

I would still suggest you look at a inverted 8, the symbol of infnity, think if the center X is you, the lines to and from the right side is the higher self, the lines to and from the left side is your past, the wide circle that encompasses the whole thing is your past and your future communicating to form your entirety. You create your world through your actions in the present which reflect to the future, carrying with you and from there to the past and to your moment. Dont try to make an apple form in your hand, for that is not the laws of physics. Try to realise that you made this world and all you need to do is remeber, send a signal to your future/past self and say that when the world was made you desired an apple to form at this time, making an exception. When you know this is the only moment there is the apple will appear, simply because you made the world billions of years ago so that it would appear at this time, because you wanted to. This requires for your path and desire to be clear.

I apologize for my very long post, thank you for your patience =) I will attempt to be shorter next time.

[Ali Quadir]

Dear people, a "short" post.

The trend in your messages is the analogy between the game world and the real world. The fact that it is an analogy is without a doubt. We design games to be an analogy to the real world. Therefore discovering the analogy does not mean we should assume that this means identity. Characters in books lead lives of their own it seems but really they have no life unless you bring in your consciousness and only in your mind then do they become alive. The characters in books even those inspired by real people are information and emotion communicated by the author of the writing. While every person who reads the book reads it differently, this is the function of the reader, and not of the separate existence of the characters in the books.

The universe of an AI character is not a book, it's computer memory. And while it can walk many paths of possibility, where the character in a book has only one. It is still essentially fixed. If an AI character surprises us by some particularly appropriate or seemingly creative response we might attribute it with the feeling of being alive. But it's response is still the result of predetermined functions and tables. It has no ability to be anything else than it's code. A game cannot evolve on it's own. Without changes to the code it will not change over time. There is no free will. Consciousness in it has no room or ability for change. It cannot choose to do things differently from what it's variables force it to do.

If you insist on calling it life you're marginally correct, it is only as alive as dust and should be treated as such. Giving AI life privilege over the much more advanced forms of life. Say insects is a kind of anthropocentric bias.

Virtual realities are not new to humanity. We've dreamed since forever. Shamen and spiritual seekers from all times have walked this astral realm. Helped by meditation or their magical herbs they have repeatedly stepped out of realities natural confines. And associated with various higher and lower lifeforms. One of the things they report is that we should learn to see the difference between what we create and see, the reflections of ourselves and what is actually out there.

They also explain to us that there is a difference between a real entity and an artificial one, like a thought form or another construct. They also explain to us the difference between living beings and empty shells. If people die they leave behind thoughts and emotions, impressions and issues that are strong enough to continue existing after the person that created them has returned to the source. These are frequently picked up by newborns and get incorporated into their self identity and the sensitives among us can feel and experience them as very real things. If you put yourself in the astral these can frequently be convincingly alive. In games the artificial entities are the similar remnants of the intents and work of the programmers. If they convince you then they did a great job.

Now this is not to say a game is worthless. I'm a huge fan of games. I build games myself. I have been interested in AI since I played my first games. And I have been toying with AI related projects for a long time. I have actually fooled people for periods up to fifteen minutes with my first chatbot. Offcourse this was in a period where people had very little experience with AI and did not know the telltale signs. I think the most convincing feature in the program was the random spelling errors. People mistook it for evidence of a real person.

I WANT to be able to express life in AI... But it's only a simulation. We really need exotic upgrades to our hardware before we can approach real life. I'm not talking multiplying our processing power. This helps in the expressive ability but not the actual life. I do not have classes named "FreeWill" or "Consciousness" And every time I try to isolate life in order to build it I end up with a black box that has pure consciousness on the inside. I cannot express pure consciousness in code it does not apply to the same logic it is holistic, non atomic and not deterministic. Perhaps advances in quantum computing will create options. I cannot accurately predict this at this time.

However, these are technologically created life forms. We create lifeforms all the time. The fact that information becomes alive if we read a book. We breathe life into the characters we read about in books, see in movies or just imagine. They evolve in our mind. We all have a personal mythology, a sort of dream world in which entities live and evolve. But this is life within you. Not life that evolves outside of you after you turn away from it.

Our attempts at artificial life, for example something as simple as games or machines that simulate the function of the merkabah have ended up deterministic and sometimes disasterous.

Have you guys seen "The nines" ? I think you should if this topic inspires you. The movie is about a multidimensional gamer and programmer. I'd actually recommend against reading the summary or spoilers, just get the movie and watch it. It's an absolute trip.

I was confused about your status as game players because while I love the story of many games. And I have felt close relationships with AI entities and deep identification with many characters. This always was skin deep and ended or faded quickly after the story was over. It is merely illusory, the shell, not life. I would love to know an artificial intelligence and experience it as a real entity..