October 17, 2015
"Earth as a Simulation Series 4: This Series offers MANY pages of Evidence that many Anomalous Experiences, Plus 'Exceptional' Abilities & Skills can be explained 'IF' we are Simulated copied people being Simulated with Less Advanced Technologies resulting in ourselves having Anomalous Experiences that relate to Hi-Tech Neural Implants & CNS Enhancements that the person we are simulating HAD, but which we are a long way from developing here!!!"
So, despite that I’d have to stress that the simulation would be making an effort to match up circumstances and experiences that are critical to it objectives there are also very logical reasons which I discussed in the previous simulation series explaining why some and in fact MANY events and circumstances may not unfold exactly as they did originally.
On this page here for example I explain how simulated copied people would absolutely have to be given some degree of ‘freewill’ flexibility in their lives and that this would be done between the more ‘critical’ timeline points.
I took time to explain why some phases of apparent ‘real’ freewill would have to be allowed else it would be obvious to ourselves that we are not real people. It would be obvious, because simulated COPIED people living out someone else’s entire life in very precise, moment by moment accurate detail would appear to be completely rigid, fixed and inflexible. If simulated copies of people are absolutely held to their originals life details absolutely ALL THE TIME then their completely robotic, rigid, utterly unadaptable behaviours would be an obvious giveaway that we are not real and are not living in a real reality.
So, a simulated copied population will have a freewill analysis and algorithm applied to themselves to allow ourselves to give ourselves increased ‘apparent’ freewill the more uncritical any particular phase or individual circumstances actually is. During the times when you are living within these ‘freewill’ phases, the closer you get to some ‘critical’ and or ‘risky’ experience then personal management strategies will be increasingly applied to ourselves to ensure that:
A person would absolutely NOT experience some ‘critical’ event that the person they are simulating DIDN’T experience because them having this experience would cause problems with respect to the simulations objectives. The outcome of these ‘manipulations’ is why many people here experience apparently ‘miraculous’ escapes and amazing ‘luck’ in either avoiding a serious accident or in rapidly recovering from one.
It will take an enormous programming effort to simulate self aware freethinking copied people to fool them into believing that they are real people with real freewill AND even more programming effort to ensure that they don’t notice the obvious anomaly clues that are the side effects of what I describe above. Like for example:
A poll on this page here asking questions about ‘accidents’ currently has (at the moment) 21 responders 20 of which have noted they’ve been very lucky or very unlucky with respect to accidents while only 1 person has experiences you’d expect of a real reality.
A poll on this page here asking people if they’ve experienced synchronicity and or coincidences leading UP TO any event has (at the moment) 83 responders of which only 2 have not experienced these. In fact two thirds of the respondents experienced as high degree of synchronicity, ‘pointers’ and or ‘steering’, coincidences leading up to MORE THAN ONE EVENT.
‘IF’ we are living in a real reality these polls would present the opposite results as such we can assume that this increased ‘flexibility’ is ‘LIVE’ and operational here.
In being ‘LIVE’ then we can assume that we have more ‘freewill’ flexibility the more ‘unimportant’ any phase or particular circumstances actually is. In other words the less critical an experience is in accuracy terms with respect to the agenda of the simulation project the greater the personal choice and the decision flexibility we will have.
In other words, it is possible that some lived through ‘simulated’ circumstances will NOT ‘exactly’ match up with the original circumstances.
While keeping the above in mind then have a read of another interesting experience from the forum here which describes someone’s experience of viewing an internal visual replay of a scene they’ve already just seen.
“During my senior high school year, I met up with a friend who I have not seen in over 3 years. She invited me back to her place.
When we arrived at her house, she put her school bag down and walked towards the fridge, then this is when something strange happened…. (I followed her and stood less than 2 metres from her)*I saw her open the fridge, ask me if I wanted a drink and yoghurt, reach in grab the refreshments and offer me both the can of soft drink and small tub of yoghurt ^. (Instantaneously a replay like an overlay of the same video clip continued immediately from ^ to * to ^ again), then she closed the fridge door.
I instantly exclaimed in confusion to her, ‘Did you see that? I saw you offer me the drink and yoghurt before you did it!”
Now, for myself I can only say that the experience above ‘feels’ like one of these not quite matched up circumstances.
However, males do tend to behave in particular ways when interacting with a female they like AND particularly one they are attracted to. Many males I am sure would like to have a photograph of the attractive woman AND if they find the woman physically attractive they’d perhaps want to have a photograph that was perhaps more interesting from an ‘attractions’ point of view than one that wasn’t!!!!
So, in circumstances where a guy with a visual implant is with a female that they ‘might’ be attracted to, the male might just be tempted to video this girl ‘perhaps’ even while she is bending over taking items out of a fridge AND then replay that visual memory block to check if the recording was what they wanted.
Although this particular visual anomaly seems to NOT quite fit in with the described circumstances it does fit with the behaviours generally ‘expected’ of males. In other words, this particular experience perhaps happened within a more freewill ‘flexible’ phase resulting in the anomalous visual replay experience not matching well in terms of the exact original ‘circumstances’.
If your eyesight did have a replay facility would you expect it to replay a scene unprompted?
It doing this automatically isn’t realistic is it, BUT it would be if the simulation is just rendering something that you have in your script which isn’t in context to the circumstances.
Also, the simulation wouldn’t OFFER anyone ‘conscious’ or direct ‘controlling’ access to any implants functions as this would cause huge suspicion about these experiences which might prompt people to start THINKING about them in ‘worrying’ ways . . .
The simulation would actually go to great lengths to prevent anyone from accessing any implants controlling functions.
If we are simulating people with all sorts of implants and enhancements then the simulation would keep us well away from any administration or any operating system functions, displays or user interfaces.
As simulation software would make a big effort to prevent us from engaging with any means of controlling or directly using any implant then lets explore how these inner systems my be visually presented and consciously accessed by the person we are simulating?
In reading this page then this may remind you of your own (or even someone else’s) similar ‘odd’ eyesight / vision experience. If you do remember any, then can you try and leave a comment below describing everything you can remember in as much detail as possible.
Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .
Filed under Human Enhancements & Implant Anomalies