Why should fantasy and facts be mixed up in order to make people think? Truth and fantasy should be clearly separated. What was the question?

Yeah ask that to Plato and his myth of the cave and Descartes and his Evil Demon...very realistic as opposed to 3000+ architects who demand a new 9/11 investigation and the real possibility behind other civilizations out there

Ok then a Brit or anglo-centric who cannot do real philosophy. Well done mate!

you are probably American and you don't want to talk about the philosophical implications of 9/11 being an inside job.

I was talking about false flag operations and the possibility of the discovery of alien civilizations.
the idea was talk about "revolutions of the mind" and why people have trouble with them.
Something like this https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/50669/authors-on-the-trouble-with-the-revolutions-of-the-mind
The moderator was probably scared-shitless and decided to remove the question without actually pondering on it.

The point is that "I think therefore I am" is not entirely right. Even the idea of the "I" or self or ego is a creation of the mind. You are the consciousness! The silent watcher not the thought. You don't even need a thought to know that. Experienced meditators know this by creating huge gaps between thoughts. (Research emptiness meditation)
If you like Sci-fi take for instance the Series "Altered Carbon" They could transport their personality and consciousness into many different avatars. Vedanta goes beyond that it tells you that you are not your personality (psychology, ego etc) because those are learnt along the way and they are subjected to impermanence. After all we are all one like drops of water reaching the ocean. Buddhism goes even further an tells you that the realization of "we are one" it's also a creation of the mind and invites you to go even further...If idea and experience of all being one is correct then there is no birth, no death, no time, the whole universe is one the rest is illusory. My question is why the universe decided to split up in trillions and trillions of pieces and disguise it's true nature. I'm afraid that's impossible to answer.

Most religions are based on the idea of possible future worlds. You can call them bardos, you can call them heaven, hell, etc. They all are based on the illusory nature of existence. With new tech instead of calling reality "a dream" we can call it a "computer simulation" which is not exactly the same concept but it's closer to Descarte's Evil Demon.
Some sects use Near Death Experiences by people to conclude that you chose to incarnate on this earth for spiritual purposes an also you chose to remove your existential knowledge for the same reason. As in the movie Total Recall or Johnny Mnemonic you face this paradox whose name is vaguely known as voluntary ignorance.
Let's presume that those people were right and when you die you see the tunnel of light, you remember your pass lives, you are even told why you agreed your shitty life on earth and you see your can even see a video of your "real" spiritual self doing that, and then they try to convince you to reincarnate again with the condition of course that you should remove all your memories. From the very moment you have technology to create fake realities (we have it now) and somehow you can't remember your past you get this paradox.(eg. possible murderer with amnesia) If we take this approach this means the "ego" or idea of the self is also illusory just like Buddhism says. Not only yours but everybody else's. You don't even need to remove your memories for that. Your whole body renews it cells and the brain changes the synaptic connections of the neurons therefore therefore just like in the Ship of Theseus you are not who you were time ago but the illusion of it. The ego or idea of the self is illusory.
The question i'm asking here is not related to the ego but to the idea of freewill that seems also to be illusory because if freewill exists it can only exist in the spot that is to say here and now.

Yeah until you find a group of people who holds different values as yours or you don't like the way they praise God. Look at history and wars. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Sometimes is hard to live your life without unicorns then again it's nice not to be enslaved by them. To some "Truth" is the only religion worth following.

Interesting conclusions then again I think you could find this question interesting. As for karma it has the same credibility as God, The Simulation Hypothesis, Bardos or the Wheel of Samara or Harry Potter. It's just a matter of faith.

Descartes got it wrong and Buddha got it right centuries before him. You are
consciousness, infinite awareness having an experience. You can't really be sure of anything apart from that even if that thought makes you feel uncomfortable.

"I think therefore I am" Descartes identified himself as an independent thinker and also with his ego. He didn't realized that his Evil Demon could have created the doubt in his mind, even induce thoughts in his mind or knowing his decisions even before himself. Check neuroscience of the free-will here He didn't even realized that his persona or ego could have been created by the demon himself.
Descartes himself even doubt his own conclusion. "if the Evil Demon deceives me, there is still an 'I' to be deceived".

There is no way to prove the existence of God or the Simulation Hypothesis. Even top engineers like Elon Musk believe this world is a simulation. So if this is all a computer simulation and we cannot disprove it perhaps tomorrow you will see flying pigs or Harry Potter flying on his broom. As long as you have witnesses you should be fine.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. — Albert Einstein

...I think the process of using empathy to understand people or more generally imagination/theories to understand things to be an abundant source of stupidity and falsity.

OK then the premises of your question are wrong and have nothing to do with empathy. I think the title "Unicorns are worthless for understanding people and the world" would be much more accurate.

Empathy can give us the courage and resolve to do good,

Empathy: em•pa•thy /ˈɛmpəθi/ : the power or ability to identify with another's feelings, thoughts, etc., as if they were one's own.

I don't think empathy guarantees goodness just the limited ability to feel through others. It has to do with perceptibility but also with imagination as you pointed out. Masochists, psychopaths, depressed people etc may know how you feel about them but that doesn't necessary stop them from carrying out their actions. Then again that's another debate...

Making an statement such us "Empathy is worthless for understanding people" and then giving examples of cases in which people are mislead by false information is like saying that "Guns are worthless for killing people".
Yes all perceptions of the mind can be misleading and lead us intro wrong conclusions however "empathy" is one of the qualities only few species have and they have it for a reason.
You statement sounds more like "well if you don't have a clear idea of what I'm going through you better shut up because I found that offensive" or "Since we don't know what a person is made of only God can judge".

Would you mind having this discussion in another thread, please?

Thanks for the Johnny Mnemonic example. I think it's the same paradox. As for Total Recall I'm afraid it's you or perhaps me the one who did not make an accurate interpretation of the movie.
We are talking of course about the original 1990 version stared by Arnold Schwarzenegger and yes the guy from Rekall could have been created by the AI machine as well even the drop of sweat!
Remember the technician quote "Blue sky on Mars!, that's a new one" at the beginning also remember the blue sky at the end:

QUAID
I just has a terrible thought...What
is this is all a dream?
MELINA
Then kiss me quick...before you wake
up.

That movie has references to the real spiritual concept underlying such us the "EGO TRIP". The trip of the self. Some religions believe our existence is one. Then again you face the paradox. How can I know that I made the choice to forget my identity when reality can be faked?

A man is defined by his actions, not his memories — Kuato

Knowing the times of mass-deception we are going through I think the ideal thing would be to teach kids to develop their own critical thinking skills so they can have a mind of their own. In few words to teach the kids to look for the truth efficiently.
History and Philosophy/Psychology would help a lot because as long as they are taught in a critical way and kids are not asked just to memorize stuff. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it and the human mind is not efficient at looking for the truth.

Empathy has to do with the ability the human mind to project itself into other people or other situations. If it wasn't for that capacity of the mind only the solipsistic approach would be valid. That approach makes you a totally egoistic person and you tend to believe that your experience in life it's unique because only experience it, when in fact the same situations have been repeated millions of times in history by other people. If not psychology wouldn't exist. Perhaps our existence is not that particular and special but our egos want to believe it is!

Empathy is not perfect because we cannot actually hack into other's people minds and fully project our consciousness into their minds an know exactly what they feel and think otherwise the world would be like a hive-mind in which the self and even death were known and accepted as illusions.
Yes, as humans we have limited capacity for empathy nevertheless it's our natural defects what makes us humans. In French and Spanish this is called Grégarisme (I don't know why it's hard to find the same term in English) that says that humans are beings between totally "gregarian" species such as bees or chimpanzees and totally independent or asocial ones such us some spiders and leopards.

Buddhism and Vedanta are some of those philosophies that aim for that "hive mind" that is called "Universe". In the first one it is said that all sentient beings want to be free of suffering. Besides they experience ignorance and impermanence too. The idea of free-will is debatable. When you accept that you get compassion and true understanding of existence not just for people but for every living creature.

The question of "who am i?" makes you do that philosophical trip from solipsism to a total non-ego experience. Empathy is just an stage.

Thanks for your answer. I'm trying to find out where exactly in Vedanta that is mentioned (Brahma Sutras, Upanishads or Bhagavad Gita) also why Brahman decided to do that? Was he deceived or self-deceived? Didn't he know about the paradox? Why is knowledge lost reincarnation after reincarnation? Doesn't that make Karma very sadistic?
I have not found any literature that calls that choice to "voluntary ignore" who you are, were do you come from and where are you going, a "paradox" when in fact its even more paradoxical than self-deception which is considered a paradox that would be more like an oxymoron if it wasn't for the recent discoveries in modern psychology.

Well I agree that not everybody has the will to make the world a better place but plenty of people do not just politicians. Why should we use a system of representatives when those are bribed and they play the same charlatan role every time and seem to be completely inefficient when it comes to producing real changes? Isn't "insanity doing the same thing an expecting different results" as Einstein would say?
There are plenty of NGOs and Non-profit organizations filled with idealistic people who want to make the world a better place. Why not using direct democracy for those people instead of a system of representatives? Why not choosing those representatives randomly instead of having a cast of people from a certain background from a wealthy family? If we did that it would be in our best interest to give people the best education possible and teaching kids to develop their own critical thinking skills instead of lobotomizing them with crappy music, fashion and drugs.
I believe that we should not surrender at least we should allow ourselves the right to dream of a better world after all what you think you become...

I agree with that but if you were one those 1% people(who owns 99% of the world's wealth) would you like the world to be any different? There are computer systems to get rid of paper money therefore a great deal of corruption with go away eg. "tax heavens who profit from money laundry, drug and guns trafficking, etc" ? Why don't they do it? Evolution sounds like a natural process but societies have a great deal of artificiality, after all we are not entirely apes.

Real progresses in societies came when people could not take it anymore eg. "The French Revolution". Don't you think modern rulers know that? The old Roman formula bread&circus seem to work better than ever then again conditions and quality of life seem to get worse and worse in spite of technological advances. Why is that? We can blow up the world several times, decode the DNA, put a man on the moon etc but we cannot create a fairer and better economic system? I don't think so I believe there are strong interests but we are dumbed down mostly by the fake-news to keep the world as it is for the sake of a few in detriment of the many.

Other clarifying example would be:

Suppose I'm a hypothetical murderer. I know that I have killed somebody and I decide to use a new technology that removes memories and personality traits. I get a new identity and years later the police charges me with murder. The police only shows as prove a videotape which could have been done in a studio and I feel like I have been framed with murder.

How can I define myself if reality can be faked?

The most similar thing I have found so far is Thursdayism. Even though this idea doesn't reflect completely the paradox of free will when reality can be altered and fully made up and one decides to remove his own past actions.

Another idea is the paradox of self-deception. You can lie to others but can you really deceive yourself? That's explained quite well in this article.

When my love swears that she is made of truth, I do believe her, though I know she lies

One could say that the world and ego according to Buddhism are of the same illusory nature so Total Recall from a Buddhist point of view is just the consciousness no-self attached to the ego or illusory idea of the universe.

Interesting article... Times do change and people are starting to wake up. Those countries have remained the same for far to long. Didn't religion have anything to do with that?

To understand what needs to change externally, one first needs to have some form of awakening internally.

Well I agree but let's be honest. Buddhism is a philosophy but it's also a religion. The ideology of this religion affects the minds of the societies in which is practised and believed. That is to say people from Buddhist countries tend to be more submissive and prone to change the inside than the outside. In the same way people from India then to be less materialistic and more conformististic because they believe in the law of Karma. That's why in these countries it's kind of hard to see unions and laws which protects the rights of the people. Religion affects how societies think and the other way around.

I think you are taking a rather naive approach here. Yes we are all human after all but that doesn't mean conspiracies don't happen and the rich and powerful don't deceive the population to keep a status quo that benefits them (cui bono). You have a clear example in the Roman empire then again we believe that is something from the past that could never happen in our time.
People do have faith in the mass-media even when the President of the United States called them fake news.
I believe that the times we are going through relate to that Nietzsche "Eternal Return" different times but humans face the same situations. There is "nothing new under the sun".

As for 9/11 this forum is not the right one to discuss that. All I can say is that the mass-media is admitting "the gulf of Tonking"(Vietnam) as a lie and Nayirah (First war in the gulf) as another life.

Truth is told yes but when it's no longer relevant.

Not really. The RCT is nothing but a new version of what the Christian Gnostics believed centuries ago then again the believe itself its not as relevant as why would people believe it and how that believe affects the mind, conduct and actions of the believer.
The RCT apart from suffering focuses on Knowledge and how sadistic it would be to reincarnate again losing it as opposed to Tibetan Buddhism in which it's just a natural way of existence.

Since we're talking of flaws here, what is a flawless human being

That's a good point but at least some people have that knowledge and it's aware of that. The human mind is not perfect and some people can take advantage of that.

Perhaps that's what Buddhism is about and philosophy is about. It's about getting a higher level of awareness and consciousness through wisdom and the pursuit of truth.

Many intellectual disciplines(Buddhism, Jnana Yoga, etc. advise you not to obsess with ideas nor attach to them because it's not good for the mind. Thinking is good but not overthinking then again according to some Buddhist literature Buddha almost starved himself to death during his ascetic period and was determined not to leave the Bodhi tree until he attained Enlightenment (how middle way is that?). Kalama Sutta tells you to be intellectual then again a great deal of Buddhism is based on faith or subjective experiences whose nature is impossible to double-check.

I'm personally following the middle way myself and exploring new options in there for my own existential journey, perhaps just I will eventually get tired of it who knows...

You got it right. The thing is that those flaws i'm talking about are experienced by everybody to a certain degree. Ignorance for instance (everybody wonders what happens after you die) you can take it with panic and obsession or you can take it as a fascinating mystery.
Religions prepare you psychologically for those moments using existential theories that cannot be proven and promises that cannot be fulfilled then again people "need to believe" for psychological reasons.
Those dogmas can shape your mind all your life if you don't ponder on them or don't want to because
another flaw in the mind is self-deception because most people want to believe in something good. A god of love or a Karma that brings justice then again nobody really knows what the architect of existence(god) if exists has in mind. There could be robots, AI, a Matrix program called "Facebook" (the guy looks quite robotic), reptilians or master Jesus or just nothing at all.
They all have the same chances but religions based on aliens or artificial intelligence seem to suit more the times we are going through then again people tend to choose tradition perhaps for another flaw in mind which is the difficulty the mind has to create new habits and break patterns or to overcome cognitive dissonance or because it's easier just to imitate than to create your own thing and look for the truth.

The point of the question is not the simulation hypothesis or how many simulations can be on top of one another. The point is that you could create a religion and create your own sect out of any existential theory that cannot be proven nor disproved. Eg. "Karma, Sansara, Reptilians, God, Alien Species etc" taking advantage of the human weaknesses in the mind such dealing with ignorance or purpose in life. Nevertheless people stick to "tradition" most likely for another human weakness in the mind which tend to believe in tradition which is "if that worked for a guy who lived 25 centuries ago It can also worked for me".

Even the most intellectual religions have flaws then again their followers don't want to see them.

Knowing the defects on the human mind and how they are exploited is an extremely valuable wisdom. It's knowing the magician's trick or how conmen con. If it's not worth discussing for you just do as the Buddha ... " noble silence "...

Is it a matter of limited choice or is it freedom that we have?

Well if we want to know if we are living in the matrix why not by finding flaws in it? Why not make a religion out that? Perhaps to be a human-being is that just that to remind yourself that you are an infinite consciousness having a human(animal) experience. Perhaps enlightenment is nothing but to remind yourself what you are after all isn't it human to forget?

Thank you for your reply but perhaps I did not make clear enough that this is mainly Buddhist question. I'm not discussing any conspiracies here.
I'm asking about how existential ideas mostly from religions and mainly from Buddhism impact the psyque of the believer and how those ideas are not based on fact but a need to believe and how the psychology of the believer tends to find systems of believes that suit the way they feel about life.

I think religions and systems of believes just take advantage of weaknesses in the human mind.

File in the SciFi/fantasy subforum.

Interesting observation... Why don't you put all Christian questions on the same subforum? To me Christianity (Voices from the sky, opening of the Red Sea, resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, etc) is way more fantastic that the Simulation Hypotesis. Remember that America is not the world.
The RCT is practically a new religion not different from the believes some New Age Sects have. This question on Buddhism particularly on Kalama Sutta. If you don't know what this religion/philosophy is about please let it be.

Perhaps there is no enlightenment, no reptilians and no God an it's all an invention of the human mind which has trouble dealing with purpose and ignorance in existence.

It's the question that pushes us — The Matrix

That need for a path or purpose in life as Nietzsche would say can be a biological need. Most parents specially with young kids don't show this need for transcendence and religion. "Enlightenment" can be just a self-realization or the ability to reach a self-hypnosis or altered mental state. It has not been studied nor examined by neuroscience then again most people need to believe in it as an act of faith or goal that will be achieved in many "future lifetimes"...