https://i.imgur.com/bPrDFAj.jpg

These are my daughter's Duplo people she plays with and, they all have names she uses so that they can communicate with each other. She can identify each of them by their looks but, how different are they really? Bob and Pete, the two with hats at the back are larger than Betty, Sharon, Janet Jackson and Charlie Brown running left to right across the front. Betty and Janet have black hair, Sharon blonde and Charlie Brown, brown. All have blue eyes except for Janet's green and Fredrika  (not pictured) has brown. However, take out the cosmetic differences and they are all pretty much the same. 

I find this interesting. I have always been in awe at how early my daughter has been able to identify people and animals that are representations of people and animals. You may not be impressed by this but recognizing Peppa Pig as a pig or Spot as a dog without being told it is a pig or dog, is no mean mental feat if you consider it thoughtfully. Our ability to identify and blur correct is an incredible gift and also a risk, as it could stop us from recognizing small differences in characters and instead, stereotype large populations as *they all look the same.*

What is interesting in this is that just like when you walk down the street and recognize a family member across the road, the same things happen in alternative populations of people who you may consider, all look the same. Under investigation, there are many more cues than hair, eye or skin color that get considered. For most people, most babies of the same color all look the same too but, mothers don't get them confused, even if twins. Fathers might though. 

When it comes down to it, the sight variations in appearance matter a great deal but at the core of things, most of us are much the same with similar proportions and for the most part, similar amounts of structure. This is true for most mammals. Below is a picture from Ernst Haeckl that I remember from biology class. I found it quite incredible that there is so much similarity but when I searched for the image, there was a lot of creationist argument that the image is wrong. 


<center><img src="http://www.rationalconclusions.com/images/citations/Elements%20of%20Molecular%20Neurobiology%20-%20420.jpg" /><br/><em><a href="http://www.rationalconclusions.com/images/citations/Elements%20of%20Molecular%20Neurobiology%20-%20420.jpg">Source</a></em></center></div>

Well, it likely is because it is a drawing that is 140 years old based on observations using equipment that is no where near as advanced as today. The argument seems to surround the idea of human embryos having gills however so, here is a better image of the human representation at 28-32 days (stage 13).

<center><img src="https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/thumb/d/df/Stage13_sem1.jpg/600px-Stage13_sem1.jpg" /><br/><em><a href="https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/thumb/d/df/Stage13_sem1.jpg/600px-Stage13_sem1.jpg">Source</a></em></center></div>

Meh, close enough. I find that there is so much similarity between these various animals really interesting too and as another example, here are the bone structures of animal arms. 

<center><img src="https://cdn.britannica.com/90/52990-004-A7D8FB4A.jpg" /><br/><em><a href="https://cdn.britannica.com/90/52990-004-A7D8FB4A.jpg">Source</a></em></center></div>


The universe is apparently one of fractalling repetition that despite all of the differences, there is still a great deal of undeniable overlap, whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist. The evolutionists will say that the overlap is because with each instance of change, there is some of the past that remains which makes perfect sense as it is traceable through time. But, the creationists may not be wrong either although, they may be wrong about the creator they imagine.

The larger similarities between us and the other animals and more imprtantly, the tiny simlarities between us as humans could be by design, which lends itself to the creationist tract but, perhaps with elements of evolution also. What happens when evolution and creation collide? Simulation. 

There are people who believe that all that we know is in something akin to a computer that simulates life, that gives us *"consciousness".* I put that in quotations because if our consciousness is externally provided, are we actually conscious? However, that is for another day. 

Living in a simulation grants the *'best'* of both views as it allows creationists the space to imagine a magical being and granter of prayers and, it gives the evolutionists a chance to be right as well as the simulation is continually *evolving* and we can observe the changes over time. Whatever *"time"* is...

But, it adds a third possibility into the mix and one that is now *also observable* and that is we as components of the system are able to direct our own evolution based on the current constraints of the system in order to be able to open up new aspects. Much like playing a computer game and passing levels to lead into the next set of tasks to complete. We can observe that we can change our evolution because, we already have done so. 

Our development of medicine being a large one but when it comes to health, our improvements to our personal hygiene habits have made large changes. Of course, our diets play a role in our physiology and our psychology also meaning that we now have a higher capacity to affect the environment than we did earlier. Any creationist must be able to observe the change in humanity over time, even if much stays the same.

As I see it, the added benefit of the belief we can somewhat *self-evolve* that simulation theory brings is highly valuable as it provides agency. Creationists take a generally external view where things happen to us, as do the evolutionists due to the time it takes to evolve but, *Simulationists*(?) take a view that while we are part of the game, we have the ability to affect how we play. 

Sure, there may or not be the idea of respawns unless you are a Buddhist Simulationist but, believing one has some agency to direct thought and behavior empowers the individual and increases the likelihood that action will actually be taken. Essentially, even though within a created system, the simulationist can take any view they want, including being the masters of their universe, albeit a constrained master whereas the creationists work for someone they have never seen and, the evolutionists are at the mercy of the universe.

I have written a little bit about victim/survivor mentality and the Simulationist could see themselves as more survivor than victim, hacker rather than user bound to the whims of an invisible programmer and the algorithms they have applied. It is no wonder in my head that someone like Elon Musk would take the Simulationist tract because it allows him to be free within the system , to dream big with the belief that it is possible, he just needs to crack the coding and build it. 

While we as a species tend to suffer from Freud's Narcissim of small differences and squabble over trivialities like race and belief systems, a Simulationist can spend develop a meta belief that allows them the space to become their own creator and, evolve themselves and the environment in which they live. It is an active position over a passive one. 

Some people don't like to think about these things, they see philosophy as a useless pursuit but, as I see it, it binds systems and allows both the scientific and the faithful to spend time investigating their position and loosening or tightening their views. When it comes to the imagination and curiosity required to have a peek behind a potential illusion, it is a creative force that may not lead to truth but, could give rise to new thoughts, new innovations and of course, solutions to some very old problems. 

People spend so much time repeating what they believe is right that they forget the value and creative force of being wrong. What we have had in the past has lead us to this point and every step beyond is going to be new. How we go and where we go will depend upon the thoughts, attitudes and beliefs about where we have been and where we see we may want to be.

We may just be *Duplo people* but, our arms and heads aren't made from plastic and we can move them at will, if we have the will to move them.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]