What is the Meaning of SecondLife?

SecondLife is on the whole a boring game. Small modicums of entertainment can be gained by seeing people attachspiritualdarkness_001 couches to themselves as outfits. It is no wonder people are wondering “is there something more than this virtual 3D world?”

Out of boredom, and seeking answers to the great mysteries of SecondLife, I decided to attend a meeting on “spiritual darkness”. Surprisingly, the spiritual people seemed resistant towards me talking about silly scientific concepts like gravity.

Today I learned:

  1. We can’t explain consciousness, therefore atoms are conscious.
  2. Thinking scientifically = cynicism
  3. I am living in spiritual darkness because I’m too attached to intellectual enlightenment.
  4. “multi-dimensional realities make sense to me. this band of frequencies experiences a duality principle that is holographic to the rest of thee system” (see chat log below)
  5. Couch monsters are freaking hilarious.

A lengthy chat log follows. It can be seen either as depressing or entertaining, depending on the sort of person you are. Feel free to read it.

[14:28] Braeden Maelstrom: alcheemy teaches that two states, though they appear as opposites, are two degrees of the same thing. Like, when does warm become cold? it’s a matter of perception, no specific degree, and it’s all one thing: temperature

[14:28] Ka Brevity: they need more quality time later

[14:28] Maia Avedon: ahhh

[14:29] Seth Haalan: yes all things diverging fromt he prima materia braeden 🙂

[14:29] Braeden Maelstrom: exactly

[14:29] Seth Haalan: or the first mass of big bang theory

[14:29] Maia Avedon: yes

[14:30] Braeden Maelstrom: i liked that oxidation and everything is burning point you made yesterday seth, really made alot of sense

[14:30] Maia Avedon: yes that was cooool

[14:30] Braeden Maelstrom: from the singularity or big bang

[14:30] Seth Haalan: 🙂

[14:30] Seth Haalan: ty

[14:30] Braeden Maelstrom: after all we are essentially plasma energy condensed and coolling

[14:30] Maia Avedon: gots some antioxidants in my leaves. cheap. free. make tea.

[14:31] Seth Haalan: 🙂

[14:31] Seth Haalan: and that was actually something i was going to ask

[14:31] Elles Silvercloud: Plasma is essentially a solid state of matter excited to a higher energy state.

[14:31] Braeden Maelstrom: nothing is solid

[14:31] Seth Haalan: would the native ahwaiian spirituallity be fairly described as living peacefully with the spirits?

[14:31] Seth Haalan: hawaiian*

[14:32] Maia Avedon: oh yes and no .. but moslty yes. we know the waays

[14:32] Maia Avedon: oopsa typos

[14:32] Braeden Maelstrom: an attitude of gratitutde 😀

[14:32] Maia Avedon: they are part of us physically, spiritually and mentally

[14:32] Seth Haalan: are the spirits really inconsistant about anything?

[14:32] Maia Avedon: yes Braden

[14:32] Elles Silvercloud: Solid still is a term of a state of matter where the atoms are moving at a slower pace due to having less energy.

[14:32] Maia Avedon: oh no they live withing their realms very consistently

[14:33] Maia Avedon: solid is agreement too to stay at a certain state

[14:33] Seth Haalan: the human inconsistant isnt about humans having any programming i feel

[14:33] Braeden Maelstrom: and that is my point, big bang happens and that heat and energy condesnes and cools over time, complexifying itself as it goes on

[14:33] Seth Haalan: its more about them not knowing that they arent actually prgoramed

[14:33] Braeden Maelstrom: plasma was the wrong word really

[14:33] Elles Silvercloud: It’s not a matter of conscious agreement, is it? It’s the atoms following laws of nature.

[14:33] Seth Haalan: wont actually claim their domain

[14:33] Maia Avedon: ohhh

[14:33] Maia Avedon: yes yes

[14:34] Braeden Maelstrom: well the laws of nature could be as natural as the laws of C++. someone created it

[14:34] Seth Haalan: how does nature have any laws elles?

[14:34] Seth Haalan: how is it at all consistant?

[14:34] Elles Silvercloud: Law in its semantical form.

[14:34] Seth Haalan: and what isnt semantic?

[14:34] Maia Avedon: metaphor too

[14:35] Seth Haalan: why doesnt matter shift amoprhously?

[14:35] Elles Silvercloud: Airplanes consistently don’t fall out of the air.

[14:35] Ka Brevity: probability

[14:35] Seth Haalan: indeed

[14:35] Elles Silvercloud: Stars consistely condense out of clouds of gas.

[14:35] Seth Haalan: this is true

[14:35] Seth Haalan: question is why?

[14:35] Elles Silvercloud: Stars consistently clump together in galaxies.

[14:35] Elles Silvercloud: Gravity.

[14:35] Seth Haalan: what is gravity and why is it?

[14:35] Maia Avedon: cuz god said not to. shup Maia shup

[14:35] Maia Avedon: hahaha

[14:35] Braeden Maelstrom: haha

[14:36] Seth Haalan: and how is it we can periceve and make any intelligible sense of any of it?

[14:36] Maia Avedon: shup Maia shup

[14:36] Elles Silvercloud: Gravity is the curvature of space time due to mas.

[14:36] Elles Silvercloud: *mass

[14:36] Maia Avedon: Maia goes for a coffee break

[14:36] Seth Haalan: ok more human observations

[14:36] Maia Avedon: brb

[14:36] Ka Brevity: lol

[14:36] Elles Silvercloud: How mass curves space time, we don’t know, but it does.

[14:36] Seth Haalan: ok why is any of this intelligble to any of us?

[14:37] Seth Haalan: at any point?

[14:37] Elles Silvercloud: I imagine it was conducive to our survival, the survival of our genes, to not consistenly walk of cliffs.

[14:37] Elles Silvercloud: *off

[14:37] Braeden Maelstrom: this is like seeing a car and explaining how the mechanisms work. the real question is who is driving the car, and where is it going?

[14:37] Seth Haalan nods

[14:38] Elles Silvercloud: Whys it got to be a conscious agent driving the car?

[14:38] Seth Haalan: even science is reliant on the premise of a valid and viable dialectic

[14:38] Braeden Maelstrom: elles, anything and verything is conscious

[14:38] Seth Haalan: a reliable dialogue between observer and observed

[14:38] Seth Haalan: more simplyput

[14:38] Seth Haalan: communication

[14:38] Elles Silvercloud: It is, Braden?

[14:38] Ka Brevity: it is

[14:38] Seth Haalan: elles

[14:39] Braeden Maelstrom: how does the atom know when to give up or attract electrons?

[14:39] Elles Silvercloud: Yes?

[14:39] Seth Haalan: following the rules of science itself

[14:39] Seth Haalan: we observes the sturcture that is supposedly the seat of human consciousness

[14:39] Seth Haalan: and we cannot percieve or deduce how consciousness arises

[14:39] Seth Haalan: now science cant leave this alone

[14:39] Seth Haalan: because the henomenon cant be reduced

[14:40] Seth Haalan: so if their observation is correct

[14:40] Elles Silvercloud: Okay, on some far out corner of the universe, past the cosmic background radiation that we can’t see, are atoms behaving differently because they dn’t have our socially constrcuted science thing?

[14:40] Seth Haalan: then if the matter than makes a human brain is cpapable of being conscious

[14:40] Seth Haalan: then it must naturally cfollow that all matter is capable

[14:40] Seth Haalan: or humans are not conscious

[14:40] Seth Haalan: and our experience refutes that

[14:41] Elles Silvercloud: How much have you read into the neuroscientific literature to make that conclusion?

[14:41] Seth Haalan: the idea that some is conscous and other is not has some seroisu logic breaks

[14:41] Braeden Maelstrom: News Flash! Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibbration. We are all one conscioussness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourrselves. Here’s Tom with the weather!

[14:41] Seth Haalan: quite a bit elles

[14:41] Ka Brevity: bill hicks

[14:41] Seth Haalan: especially neuro-physics

[14:41] Ka Brevity: and it’s just aride braeden

[14:41] Elles Silvercloud: There are many things that we thought we’d never be able to reduce to physics to explain.

[14:42] Braeden Maelstrom: indeed Ka 🙂

[14:42] Elles Silvercloud: And then one day, natural selection, Genesis account gets thrown out the window.

[14:42] Seth Haalan: ok well can argue all knowledge is subjective

[14:42] Maia Avedon: thought they tossed that already

[14:42] Maia Avedon: back

[14:42] Ka Brevity: wb maia

[14:42] Elles Silvercloud: Today there are still some that say it’s too complex to be explained by natural selection, they don’t study their subject as well as most people who hold fancy positions at universities.

[14:42] Maia Avedon: ty ty

[14:43] Elles Silvercloud: Seth, do airplanes fall out of the sky when you fly over some lost tribe of the amazon?

[14:43] Seth Haalan: and actually recent theory does suggest that not only can matter deviate but it does as the configuration of subatomic “strings” is potentially infinite

[14:43] Maia Avedon: hahaha elles

[14:43] Elles Silvercloud: As far as they’re concerned, objects that big don’t fly.

[14:43] Braeden Maelstrom: your thinking too small Elles

[14:43] Braeden Maelstrom: narrow band

[14:43] Maia Avedon: lol

[14:43] Braeden Maelstrom: think cosmically

[14:44] Braeden Maelstrom: sure these laws are all over, and one culture, or one planet doesnt change them

[14:44] Elles Silvercloud: Yeah, we’re not in any of those nebulae right now, and yet stars are forming according to our understanding of gravitational law.

[14:44] Seth Haalan: well here is an example of spiritual darkness

[14:44] Seth Haalan: and i relent elles

[14:45] Ka Brevity: i relented a long time ago

[14:45] Seth Haalan: there is no substance or valditity to consciousness and no reasson why all of these scientific laws are intelligible they just are

[14:45] Seth Haalan: works for me

[14:45] Ka Brevity:

[14:45] Ka Brevity: ok there is darkness for ya

[14:45] Ka Brevity: lol

[14:46] Seth Haalan: well another class soon on cynicism

[14:46] Maia Avedon: ha

[14:46] Elles Silvercloud: I said that an ability to understand reality is conducive to not falling off cliffs.

[14:46] Seth Haalan: feel free to remain and chat

[14:46] Braeden Maelstrom: multi-dimensional realities make sense to me. this band of frequencies experiences a duality principle that is holographic to the rest of thee system

[14:46] Ka Brevity: oh yes…will be a fun day

[14:46] Maia Avedon: oh yess

[14:46] Elles Silvercloud: And I’m not cynical.

[14:46] Ka Brevity: cynicism after darkness

[14:46] Maia Avedon: thanks Seth

20 responses to this post.

  1. “solid is agreement too to stay at a certain state” We can’t even get fully rational human beings to agree on something like torture, how can mindless atoms possibly get along so well that they can support the entire structure of the universe? Oh, the silliness of it all!

  2. Posted by wazza on June 11, 2009 at 12:55 am

    poor dear…

    when you get groupthink like this, it’s best just to get out, they take the agreement of others as proof of their arguments, and you don’t have anyone agreeing with you…

  3. Posted by wazza on June 11, 2009 at 1:17 am

    Oh, and as for atoms being conscious:


  4. Posted by CJ on June 11, 2009 at 3:21 am

    Lucia, all I can say is HOLY CRAP, tl;dr.

    Just kidding. Blind them with science.

  5. Posted by Rev. J. Reed Braden on June 11, 2009 at 8:12 am

    Can you kill people in SL? And if you die in the game, do you die IRL too?

  6. Posted by Mark on June 11, 2009 at 11:10 am

    Methinks Seth and his friends have some “serious logic breaks” themselves…

  7. JRB: Death is enabled in some locations, however there is infinite respawn.

  8. Splendid Ellis you believe in enlightment or Illumination, in the promethan sense?

    If you believe in enlightenment then someone has to be the light bringer, so you must worship the force of enlightenment.

    Have you heard of Albert Pike or Manly Palmer Hall?

  9. Elles-

    you put up with these mystically inclined pseudo-intellectuals very well, but I have to call you out on something:

    “[14:43] Elles Silvercloud: Seth, do airplanes fall out of the sky when you fly over some lost tribe of the amazon?”

    I hate to say it, I really, really, really do, but this is a strawman argument. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the concept that the laws of nature are a subjective, social construction. That’s just BS. But be careful about making strawmen. They’re too easy to pick apart. 🙂

  10. @Dawkinswatch Would you please rephrase that?

    @Zarthustra I don’t see how it is a strawman. They’re saying the laws of physics are based upon the people setting the laws of physics in question, Lost tribes of the Amazon have no understanding of how something that big could fly and only an understanding of “big objects fall except for birds”. You might argue that that’s their logic taken to an extreme, but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they seriously believe that the laws of physics are defunct with people who don’t understand them.

  11. Hmmm. It is their logic taken to an extreme, but using their logic one could just claim the pilot and the passengers would (oh this is going to sound so damn stupid) “keep the plane flying with their social construction of the industrialized world.” (all that just gave me a headache)

    I feel like there was an opportunity for a much stronger criticism than the hypothetical scenario your offered. Whenever I get stuck in these sorts of conversations (in “primary” life, that is) I find that the “quantum mystics” try and co-opt scientific language because on some level it means a lot to them that their cherished belief be “scientific” or at least compatible with science. So I go at it from the perspective of an inquiring scientist, and if the purpose of the hypothetical scenario of a plane flying over the Amazon, you would have to answer several questions that would probably be relevant to the idiot making the claim that reality is socially constructed, such as the matter of a pilot or passengers which I mentioned, or whether the plane is observed or unobserved by the lost Amazonian tribe, yadda yadda yadda (I could go on but trying to think like a PoMomaniac when I’m not arguing with one makes me sick).

    Anyway, then you just relax and enjoy the tongue tied speechlessness of once-babbling idiots. I’ve gotten people to back out of these arguments this way and basically admit defeat. They don’t come around immediately but it gets them thinking and more sometimes even doubting.

  12. Posted by Mark on June 13, 2009 at 4:01 am

    @Zarathustra: I don’t follow how asking those questions would result in “the tongue tied speechlessness of once-babbling idiots.” They’d just make up equally fictitious answers.

  13. Teehee, come to think of it I do have to replace “airplane” with a UAV as an example.

  14. Posted by wazza on June 13, 2009 at 6:11 am

    one with no radio link to home base… because that would constitute a socially constructed link to the dominant “planes can fly” paradigm…

    Philosophy student WIN/FAIL!

  15. Posted by Mark on June 13, 2009 at 6:16 am

    To fully remove any links to the “planes can fly” paradigm you’d have to go back in time and stop the development of planes. Otherwise they could say that the intention of the people who launched the plane is enough. Or of those who designed it.

  16. @Elles-

    Right. An unmanned aircraft would make a better hypothetical example, as there would be no pesky people from industrialized nations onboard to harsh the Amazonians’ primordial mellow.

    Speaking of whacky claims, I was at a dinner party last night. At these sorts of parties people tend to engage me about their pet extraordinary claims. Last night astrology came up, and one guy suggested to me that stars arranged in different patterns could be responsible for differences in radiation with mutagenic properties. Obviously, this is BS because mutations are spontaneous and even if they weren’t, a pattern of stars acting differently on the DNA of life on Earth (or just humans? He didn’t say, LOL). Anyway, the mere fact that this proposition would not only require properties of radiation and DNA that don’t exist in nature but might even require a geocentric view of the universe (or at least a geocentric view of the galaxy) didn’t register until I pointed it out. At that point he actually looked hurt (I keep saying, the problem isn’t that there’s any logical reason to believe A over B; rather, people invest emotionally in their beliefs, whether those beliefs are astrology, Christianity, objectivism, or postmodernism). However, the same person who made that suggestion to me which I dismissed on scientific grounds later said, “You know I’m a spiritualist and a theist, but I think other spiritualists who don’t listen to the atheistic and agnostic view of things are doing their spirituality an huge disservice.”

  17. Hhhmmm… Whenever they make something up, there is always some sort of inconsistencies. Like if astrology were true, no one would be able to predict anything anyways because there are over 100 billion stars in a large galaxies, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. So they couldn’t take account of those, plus the planets and asteroids, and the way they talk about the supernatural forces, it never gets weaker by the distance. If it did get weaker by the distance, their whole claim of stars affecting people is bunk anyways.

  18. Posted by wazza on June 15, 2009 at 4:43 am

    ah, but it’s all based on perception, so only the visible stars are important…

  19. “alcheemy teaches that two states, though they appear as opposites, are two degrees of the same thing. Like, when does warm become cold? it’s a matter of perception, no specific degree, and it’s all one thing: temperature”

    Galileo H. Galilei on a pogo stick! I’ve had better conversations with a Markov chain. . . . Why is this utterly banal observation, about things being hot or cold or somewhere in between, treated as a great lesson from “alcheemy” [sic]?

    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibbration. […]”

    Wait, so this fellow was using a quote by a stand-up comedian talking about an acid trip as support for a philosophical position?

    “multi-dimensional realities make sense to me.”

    That’s good. I hate to think of how much it would suck to be trapped on a line your entire life. Enjoy your newly found Enlightenment powers of moving not just forward and backward, but left and right and, on occasion, up and down!

  20. Posted by Daiba on June 29, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    “[14:38] Seth Haalan: a reliable dialogue between observer and observed”

    Seems to me that these people are yet more victims (perpetrators?) of poorly popularized quantum mechanics. Science journalists failed to understand that the quantum “observer” was any macroscopic system, leaving us with a half-informed public that thinks consciousness is the key element. Solipsistic and utterly wrong, but, unsurprisingly, it really stuck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: