November 10, 2015

Example of Why a Simulated Copied Persons Memory Recall will be Guaranteed to be Error Prone

"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!!!"

Did you manage to ‘think’ of an example that would make the case as to why for specific past incidents/events/circumstances you’d not recall your own experiences of that event?

Here is my example below . . .

The freewill algorithm may have resulted in someone you spent time with on a Saturday afternoon to uncharacteristically wear a red top, red glazed shades and a specific pullover hat that hides their long hair that’s in a pony tail whom also arrived and drove away in his borrowed sisters yellow car whose license plate was xyz 123. About the same time as I remember him leaving a person two blocks away matching this description robs a bank and pulls away in a yellow car of the same make and model with registration xyz 173.

So, under the above circumstances, does the simulation have you recall the details of your own memory when this person is scripted as wearing completely different gear, arriving in his own car and leaving a half hour later than he actually did?

As he is scripted as absolutely NOT robbing a bank AND will be part of events important to the simulations agenda in the future which obviously will be somewhat compromised if he’s serving many years in prison, then which memories do you think the simulation software will have you recall?

Will the simulation have you recall your own lived through ‘experience’ memories which will compromise why the entire simulation was built and run in the first place OR will it have you recall a set of memories that will support it’s aims and objectives?

I should point out that re-writing a memory when as a simulated software defined person your memory is defined by this software and is saved as ‘data’ wouldn’t be a problem in the slightest. Would it!!!

So, the widely documented and recognized false memory ‘recall’ problem is the result of a simulated copied population diverging off script for specific experiences such that what the simulated persons experiences end up being different to those of the person they are simulating. Any divergence away from original scripted experiences means that the memories of these experiences ‘should’ be different too. So, for a simulated copied population there are multiple memory recall possibilities for many past events and depending on the priorities of it’s out of context ‘damage limitation’ and ‘simulation objectives’ software it’ll often have people recalling memories of specific past events that don’t actually conform to what they themselves actually lived through.

So, we have an abundance of memory research confirming that:

1. All humans have memories that have been researched enough to show that they are as accurate as a colander is water tight. I.e. recalled ‘queried’ memories are often spectacularly wrong. Strangely, this generic, faulty human memory condition ‘anomaly’ doesn’t provoke any suspicion.
2. Then we have documented that between 2 & 10 percent of children have been identified as having an amazing eidetic, photographic memory recall ability (that ANY humans have these abilities never mind that a significant number do also doesn’t provoke any ‘suspicions’ either).
3. Despite that they have an unbelievably accurate memory recall for certain ‘visual’ presentations these peoples memories are also shown to be false for specific ‘queried’ past events. In other words, you’d have to be BRAIN DEAD to not actually become aware that memory recall anomalies and PARTICULARLY memory recall anomalies confirmed of people with a confirmed photographic memory are actually HIGHLY ANOMALOUS. However, yet again this also isn’t viewed with suspicion.
4. Despite that we have between 2 & 10 percent of children identified as having an amazing photographic memory recall ability, the ‘fact’ that this amazingly accurate memory starts to fade out when they are about 6 years old, also ISN’T questioned or viewed with any suspicion either. At least not enough for any academic or ‘scientist’ to start questioning ‘fundamentals’.
5. Then despite that we have about the same percentage of old people as have photographic memory as children actually ending up with severe memory recall problems this to, isn’t viewed with suspicion either. I suspect that none of those ‘observation’ focused experts have even noticed this possible association.
6. Perhaps fading & frail memories & false memory syndrome could be linked with fading out worrying things that people should be suspicious about despite that they don’t appear to even be able to notice anything suspicious in the first place?

Seriously!!!! I started to think of anomalous memory possibilities about two weeks ago, I wrote a page and a half ‘outline’ covering the few memory oddities I already knew about. It only took a few days of semi-concerted thinking to be able to figure out that many documented memory problems can actually be ‘rationally’ and very coherently explained if we are copied people living in a simulation.

At this point, I’ll repeat the question I asked on the previous page AND I’ll add in some other questions for you to ponder on too . . .

1. Do Memories of Research involving Memory Recall Anomalies Fade Faster than Memories of Research that doesn’t Involve Anomalies?
2. Do Memories of Research involving ANY Anomalies Fade Faster than Memories of Research that are not Anomalous/Odd?
3. Why are ‘Researchers’ Observed Behaviours and Attitudes to ‘Anomalies’ actually HIGHLY Anomalous with respect to what would be rational and objective behaviours and evaluations that would lead to greater and eminently more coherent understandings of ourselves and ‘reality’?

As part of a practical demonstration of the anomaly memory fade out problem which due to being faded out means that anomalies are more quickly unavailable to be THOUGHT about which ‘essentially means that combinations of ‘associated’ anomalies will be more difficult to recall and therefore way harder to collate, think about and evaluate . . . then can you think of any other well documented ‘science’ research of specific and ‘debilitating’ human behaviours that are also ‘coincidentally’ exactly what you’d expect a simulated copied population to exhibit?

Coincidentally, it’s research that’s been repeatedly presented and discussed publicly for years? Any ideas? Can you recall descriptions of any past well researched anomalies that you’ve already ‘read’ about? That are perhaps just a memory recall away from re-discovery . . . ?!?!?!?

Well, coincidentally, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are side effects that you can deduce will be exhibited by a simulated copied population. Accurately simulated copies of other people will find themselves held to beliefs, ideas and understandings that relate to the person they are simulating’s original environment and circumstances. Unfortunately, depending on many simulation design and agenda factors your ‘scripted’ and hence pre-defined beliefs, ideas, understandings and arguments could easily end up being observably OUT OF CONTEXT with respect to what you ACTUALLY find yourself living out within the simulation here. In other words, despite that we can deduce that the freewill algorithm absolutely will and that the aims and objectives of the simulation may have us living in very different circumstances and societies here our scripted ideas, understandings, beliefs and arguments are unlikely to change, they are likely to continue to reflect the circumstances or society of the person we are simulating had NOT what we find ourselves living out here. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are a side effect of being ‘stuck’ with the ideas, understandings, beliefs and arguments of the person we are simulating while living in circumstances here where these ‘observably’ no longer apply. More expanded details of the above can be found here.

As we have loads of researched and documented science originated anomalies (as I describe on this page here), then why don’t our researchers spend time seriously ‘THINKING’ about why we have such an abundance of these?

Well, the ‘cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias’ paragraph above can ‘rationally’ explain why this is the case. Scientists here will be simulating a scientist living in the original population. Unfortunately scientists and academics simulated here will will exhibit the same attitudes, ideas and understandings and well as EXPECTATIONS that the person they are simulating had. I.e. because they are living in a ‘real’ environment they will only encounter anomalies very rarely. So, the same scientists being simulated here absolutely won’t be expecting any anomalies. In fact, in attitude terms, they’ll automatically appraise and evaluate everything in the simulation as they did in the original environment. Despite that they ‘might’ have been competent in the original ‘real’ environment, in a simulation they’ll appear to be embarrassing incompetent. In particular, they’ll not handle ‘anomalies’ at all well, as they will have no experience of even noticing them never mind of actually spending time THINKING about them!!! In a simulated copied population this is what you can deduce will be the behaviours and attitudes of your scientists, academics and researchers . . .

Is there any observable evidence of this being the case? Is the sky blue?

Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .

Filed under Human Enhancements & Implant Anomalies