What is the New World Order?
The essence of the New World Order (NWO) or world management system is that it is management by social engineers, rather than government based on a written constitution. How you are affected by this management system depends on what the social engineers decide the system should do for you and require of you. The social engineers and system managers think of themselves as scientists applying the scientific method to the control of group behavior. Your behavior and your relationships are regarded as the subject of investigation and control by those who call themselves social scientists. You are among their test animals, and you have no say in, and often no knowledge of, experiments that involve you. If the NWO is totally implemented, your independence, individuality, and freedom will be gone.
There is nothing new about the idea of managing others, or even of controlling the whole world. That has been the goal of social philosophers for thousands of years. However, we need not go back over ancient history. We are concerned primarily with what has been going on in our own generations. This we can understand quite well if we confine ourselves to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.
Goals of the New World Order
To begin to understand the New World Order (NWO) you need to forget what you have been told about philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats; left and right; Socialists and Libertarians; business and labor; liberal and conservative; black and white, etc.. The planners of the New World Order know they must use, influence, and cater to all of these groups to accomplish the goals they are seeking, which are:
1. Consolidate everything.
2. Commercialize everything.
3. Classify everything.
4. Claim everything.
5. Control everything.
We might call these goals the five Cs of the New World Order. If it is fully empowered, free speech, personality, personal goals and decisions, individual responsibility, private property, private business, morality, Constitutional government, national sovereignty; and religious freedom can no longer be tolerated. Everyone in every country will be subject to the NWO management system. To quote the French mathematician/philosopher, Auguste Comte (1798-1857), one of the most significant early planners of the world management system:
“The most important object of this regenerated polity will be the substitution of Duties for Rights; thus subordinating personal to social considerations. The word Right should be excluded from political language, as the word Cause from the language of philosophy. ”
“The only real life is the collective life of the race; individual life has no existence except as an abstraction.”
He also wrote:
“When the system is fully regulated, the effect of this will be to secure greater unity, by diminishing the influence of personal character.”
This means that to the NWO world management system planners you, as an individual, are considered to be without character or personality. Your personal life and personal goals are unimportant to them, unless those goals are consistent with the sociological, economic and religious goals of the New World Order.
Public Schools and The New World Order
To demonstrate how NWO sociological, economic and religious goals are being brought about we can look first at the public schools. Most students and parents think the purpose of public schools is to teach essential and interesting information, vocational and recreational skills, considerate and responsible behavior and an appreciation of our country’s history and Constitution. After your formal education is over, your parents expect that you should be able to take responsibility for your own moral, material, and social well-being, and also the moral, material, and social well-being of any children you might have until they, too, are ready to claim such freedom for themselves.
At one time the goal of those who planned the school curriculum in the local communities seemed to follow the wishes of parents and the needs of students. Now, however, those sociologists who have the power to affect policy in the public schools do not concern themselves with what you need, what your parents want for you, or with respect and support for the United States Constitution. Their primary goals are to CONSOLIDATE policies, COMMERCIALIZE instruction, CLASSIFY individuals, CLAIM jurisdiction, establish CONTROL, and train you to fit obediently into their world management system without hesitation or protest. In 1928, sociologist Ross L. Finney wrote:
“A new world is emerging in which the social structures will be of a different shape, the social resources of a different scope and caliber, than anything that history records. It is a new deal - in fact a different game with different cards; and we who are now alive are privileged to witness its beginning, however blind most of us may be to its implications for ourselves and our posterity. And for a new age, a new school!”
National Council for the Social Studies
An organization called the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), which is an offshoot of the National Education Association and a promoter of the New World Order, has CLAIMED power to determine what you should learn and what you should not learn in geography, history, government, economics, psychology, religion, world politics, etc.. These subjects were CONSOLIDATED decades ago by sociologists so they could present them together under one agenda called Social Studies. The leaders of NCSS now decide what you should be taught, how you should be taught, and how your achievement will be evaluated.
In addition to the National Council for the Social Studies, the various states have state councils for the social studies. Through the efforts of state councils - oftentimes with the aid of the Education Commission of the States - bills are presented to state legislatures to make NCSS’s curriculum standards legal requirements. After these standards are passed in your state, your local school board, your own teachers and your parents have little to say about what you should be expected to learn in these subjects. If you, your school, or community have different standards; if you do not try to live up to NCSS’s standards for the New World Order, your schools can be closed or your community punished by depriving it of federal, foundation and state money.
Grouping People to Control Them
It is interesting to investigate how this takeover was accomplished. Like everything connected to the New World Order and the five Cs, CONTROL is accomplished by influencing groups, and most particularly group leaders. This is because people who are emotionally involved with groups respond to leadership. They also tend to feel CLASS loyalty. For example, when your elected officials CONSOLIDATE into groups and meet with elected officials from other areas, they frequently get carried away by the oratory and comradeship. Although they may not understand the full implications of the ideas the carefully-selected speakers and facilitators promote, the officials are maneuvered into feeling obligated to support what the group supports. By giving their loyalty to these secondary groups, the officials frequently betray the primary loyalty they owe to you and the citizens of the states, cities and counties they are supposed to serve. CONTROL of government officials, educators, congressmen, legislators, businessmen, city councils, school boards, etc. through organizations is part of the NWO plan for substitution of its system for the U.S. Constitution.
Through CONSOLIDATION into national or international ‘blanket’ organizations, one person or a small group of people can make decisions and set goals for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people. They can set goals for you if you do not object. Always remember, whoever sets your goals or presents you with what they call a vision or a mission, CONTROLS your behavior. You had better understand fully any such commitment you are asked to make.
Goal-Setting, Political Management
Setting goals, and designing visions and missions for groups of people is one of the favorite preoccupations of the New World Order philosophers and managers. In education, goal setting and visioning serve to CONSOLIDATE policies so the NWO/NCSS curriculum can be established in schools throughout the country. When you hear someone who uses the phrase, “We must. . .” or variations of it such as, “We need to. . .”, “It is essential that we. . .”, etc, without adding, “if we wish to . . ,” there is a pretty fair chance that person is trying to convince you to give up the idea of independent research and thinking so you will support whatever program or goals he or she might be promoting.
It is unfortunate that few of our congressmen, state, county, and city legislators have been alert enough to detect the behavior management and CONTROL that have been directed toward them. Many of them have been deceived, flattered, coerced, bribed or blackmailed into surrendering their legitimate authority to New World Order decision makers. This, too, was planned. In 1906, sociologist Lester Ward explained how NWO legislation could be achieved:
“It must not be supposed that such legislation can be conducted to any considerable extent in the open sessions of legislative bodies. These will doubtless need to be maintained, and every new law should be finally adopted by a vote of such bodies, but more and more this will become a merely formal way of putting the final sanction of society on decisions that have been carefully worked out in what may be called the sociological laboratory.”
Goals 2000 - Control is the Object
Most of the governors of the United States are members of the National Governors' Association. They have national meetings to CONSOLIDATE their policy decisions. In 1990, a policy was declared to promote the adoption of national educational goals. The Republican Bush Administration had endorsed the idea in 1989. Multinational corporations and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce supported it. Then, in 1994, Congress (Democrats and Republicans) passed and funded the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
Originally, social studies was not included, but the NCSS saw to it that social studies was annexed to the national agenda. Its leaders appointed a task force to develop CONSOLIDATED curriculum standards. These were later adopted in most states as part of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Eight goals were chosen and publicized. The eight educational goals of Goals 2000 were not the important part of this operation. Any goals that sounded good, along with the money promised, could have enticed governors and state legislators to pass enabling legislation in their states. The real goals of Goals 2000 are to CONSOLIDATE leadership over all the states; CLAIM jurisdiction over curriculum to CONTROL what you and other students learn; and eventually to COMMERCIALIZE and CONTROL all educational resources through the use of charter schools and culture vouchers.
It is no surprise to find now that the eight publicized goals have not been reached - and will not be reached by the Year 2000. Does this mean that CONSOLIDATED goal-setting and visioning will be discontinued? On the contrary! To the goal-setters it means merely that the Goals 2000: Educate America should be renamed, America’s Education Goals, and should be extended beyond 2000 without a specific deadline. Even when failure is obvious and promises are not fulfilled, CONTROL, once gained, is never willingly relinquished by the NWO and United Nations regional government promoters.
Failures of Public Schools
In recent decades, public education has been subjected to a great deal of criticism. Because schools and curriculum have been interfered with by those who promote the NWO world management system, students were not learning what their parents, potential employers, and the students themselves, knew they ought to learn. Skill in reading, natural science, English, mathematics, foreign languages were dismally lacking in many high schools, and even college graduates. All kinds of excuses have been brought forward such as:
* The problem is with your parents because they do not take an interest in your schooling
* The problem is with you and other students because you do not work hard enough or take an interest in learning
* The schools are not using the right system of teaching. We need to experiment with new systems
* The problem is not enough money for education. If schools had more money they would produce better results
* The problem is segregation. We need to bus for integration
* Classrooms are overcrowded. We need more teachers
* Public schools should have tax-supported competition. We need charter schools and school vouchers
And so it has gone for decades.
Enemies of Learning
Few of the explainers have revealed the possibility that you are not being properly taught because the NWO world management system does not want you to know too much. In his book, A Sociological Philosophy of Education, published in 1928 by the MacMillan Company, Ross L. Finney, Assistant Professor of Educational Sociology at the University of Minnesota, wrote the following about what should and should not be offered to students:
“...a larger place in the curriculum ought to be given to the new humanities and the fine arts, especially the former; and that correspondingly less time and energy ought to be allotted to mathematics, formal English, and the foreign languages...”
“What we obviously need is a science of society. Since the time of [Auguste] Comte this has been the aspiration of modern scholarship. Instead of blundering and bungling along from one crisis to the next, science might render society really telic, and reduce social phenomena to CONTROL as it has done in the natural world....” (Emphasis mine)
“If leadership by the intelligent is ever to be achieved, followership by the dull and ignorant must somehow be assured. Followership, quite as much as leadership, is, therefore, the crucial problem of the present crisis...”
“The safety of democracy is not to be sought, therefore, in the intellectual independence of the duller masses, but in their Intellectual dependence. Not in what they think, but in what they think they think...”
“The problem of democracy is which specialized sub-group is to function as cerebral cortex. That will depend upon who succeeds in drilling epigrams into the memories of the duller masses. If scientists and educators fail to do it, then selfish deceivers and exploiters will. But think for themselves the duller masses never can.”
Those of us who do not agree with sociologists like Ross L. Finney are CLASSIFIED as selfish deceivers, exploiters, or members of the duller masses. NWO usurpers have nothing but contempt for us and our need to learn. Many parents, teachers, administrators, legislators and state governors, etc. have been taken in by the NWO agenda. There is little chance that your state and school are independent of NWO management system. Therefore, it is important that you begin to recognize enemies of learning even when they have college educations, advanced degrees, university, government and foundation support, and all the preplanned publicity they need to try to impress those of us whom they consider to be selfish deceivers, exploiters or the duller masses.
Goals Statement for Schools
You should understand that those who seek to CONTROL your education in order to limit your access to knowledge are not doing it because they love or respect you, but because they want to CLAIM and CONTROL you. The more you know about their goals and techniques, the easier it becomes to recognize efforts to CONTROL your thoughts. The more you know about history, geography, mathematics, English, science, etc. the more power you have to defend yourself against falsehood, deceit and domination.
By establishing goals, missions, and visions, the NCSS has found a way to limit knowledge in all subjects. I remind you, he who chooses your goals controls your behavior. The social studies goal statement that has been chosen by the National Council for the Social Studies and adopted in similar, and sometimes identical form by the states is:
“...to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
Problem-Solving and Decision-Making
To most people this sounds good, but please notice that it is all about politics and world CONSOLIDATION. Nothing is mentioned about what is good for you, about giving you the knowledge to make intelligent fact-base personal decisions, about helping you to prepare for a career of your own choice. Nothing is mentioned about what is good for your city, your county, your state, or the United States of America. No - you are treated as a dependent member of the New World Order’s interdependent world. Interdependence means CONTROL by sociology’s New World Order and loss of control over your own destiny.
Curriculum goals, guidelines, and standards for states and local communities are patterned after those of the NCSS and United Nations NWO. In all cases, the curriculum is based on the idea of rational problem-solving and decision-making, and on what the NWO crowd calls interdependence. You are asked to make decisions related to pre-selected social problems based on the limited information available through classroom assignments.
In this regard, it is important to know another behavior control fact. He who states the problem for you controls your thinking. Your thoughts and efforts are directed toward problems which have been selected for you. When you express an opinion about suggested social or personal problems, you accept the NWO agenda and acknowledge an obligation to share your thoughts on the problems with classmates. You can then be CLASSIFIED or grouped according to your public statements.
Limiting Knowledge - Demanding Opinions
Time spent learning facts and skills can be limited when it is taken up listening to and arguing about one another’s uninformed opinions. Also, a special danger is involved in this problem-solving, decision-making type of education. You and your fellow students are encouraged to join groups and act immediately based on the opinions you express in the cIassroom - never taking into consideration that your opinions and decisions may change as you mature and have access to information from other sources.
If you express the opinion that you would like to try drugs or engage in sexual activities; if you say you might steal or become violent; teachers are instructed not to warn you against such behavior or tell you that your decision is wrong or dangerous. That, say the curriculum planners, would be judgmental.
No Right - No Wrong - Rational Conscience
It is assumed that none of the problems or personal dilemmas presented can be prevented or solved by self control and moral behavior. How do curriculum planners justify this omission? Your teachers are told that any statement regarding morality is considered to be an unexamined belief based on authority. The National Council for the Social Studies says decision-making should be what they call rational, rather than being based on authority or conscience. For example, in Wisconsin teachers were advised:
“A child generally comes to school with what R. J. Havighurst calls an authoritarian conscience acquired from his parents through a progression of punishments and rewards. He soon learns that he is not equipped to deal with all the new situations which confront him. Peers and teachers join and sometimes supplant parents in helping him to find solutions which are often in conflict with those offered by his parents. His task, then, is to change from this early authoritarian conscience to a rational one. This requires that he learn a process for resolving to his own satisfaction the conflicts that will inevitably arise whenever change or confrontation with an opposing view makes him question his existing values.” [11]
Decisions Based on Conscience Not Allowed
When you are taught to doubt your own conscience in favor of rational decision-making, many types of destructive, obnoxious, and immoral behavior will no longer be objectionable to you. You learn to find reasons to justify whatever behavior might have emotional appeal. Unbelievable as it may seem, teachers in Wisconsin actually were warned against holding students to traditional high standards:
“Traditionally there was little question that the schools should promote such values as the following:
1. Respect Property.
2. Be respectful of adults.
3. Say please and thank you at appropriate times.
4. Do not use profane language or bad grammar.
5. Be neat and clean.
6. Do not lie or cheat.
Now, however, in some situations these are quite controversial. Many lawsuits and community controversies have focused on the meaning of “ and clean,” for example. Several recent surveys indicate that cheating in school, rather than being unacceptable, has become the norm, and most students feel no guilt about cheating. Standards of profanity are constantly changing and words that one rarely heard used in public a few years ago are now heard a great deal. While many may not like these developments, it is very necessary for teachers to recognize that they are taking place.”
Teachers Are Intimidated By The NWO
Knowing what you now know about the goals of the New World Order, you can understand that the above instruction to teachers could be taken as a veiled threat, better not telling them they had better not criticize the behaviors mentioned. Doing so might make them vulnerable to law suits, or perhaps, discipline by their superiors. Thus, the Wisconsin Department of Public instruction, following the guidelines of the NCSS, actually promoted the idea that it is acceptable for you and your fellow students to be thieving, disrespectful, ungrateful, profanity-using, sloppy, and dirty lying cheaters who have no conscience, and therefore no feelings of guilt for such behavior. The United Nations New World Order does not need people of character. It needs only those who are pliable and manageable.
Creating Problems
Problem creation is another unbelievable aspect of NWO education. According to the NCSS, one of the main duties of teachers is to create emotional problems for you:
“Any attempt by a teacher to create a problem without arousing students emotionally can only result in a pseudo-problem. When students are disturbed, upset, perhaps even angry, they are closer to having a problem than is ever the case when teachers make the preservation of objectivity their only concern. A teacher can sometimes create in students a feeling that their beliefs, concepts or values are inadequate in some respect. When students are puzzled over what to believe, they are more likely to have an authentic problem in their possession...
If the student is to become engaged in problem-solving he must be doubtful, uncertain or puzzled concerning something within his experience and have the desire through inquiry to remove the doubt. As long as he is certain of the truth or goodness of a particular idea or action, or as long as he is unconcerned, indifferent about the matter, he is not involved in problem-solving. Hence, the initial task confronting the teacher is that of creating the state of uncertainty or doubt in the mind of the student. . .the teacher must implant the element of doubt.
Strategies Used to Create Problems
Since the presence of the element of doubt or puzzlement is a necessary condition for the initiation of problem-solving activity, let us consider teaching strategies which are likely to evoke such reactions...
* ...The teacher can present the students with a problem within the context of the content.
* ...The teacher can encourage the students to discover a problem within the context of the content.
* ...The teacher can convert the unexamined beliefs of students into problems.
* ...The teacher can point up conflicts within the students’ pattern of beliefs, thus creating problems.
* ...The teacher can point up conflicts within the course content, thus creating problems.
Teaching problem-solving, decision-making, and interdependence may have sounded good to many teachers, school board members, local curriculum coordinators, legislators, parents, and students. However, if they had the opportunity to read the above, and what the NCSS curriculum planners mean when they promote this type of education, all of those affected might be more hesitant before giving their sanction.
Changing Beliefs
Remember, the NWO planners and managers want CONTROL, but they know for certain that they cannot make you go along with their plans if you are aware of their intentions and if you are firmly convinced that to do so would be wrong. That is why so many methods have been devised to help you question or change your mind about what you believe.
If the New World Order is to succeed in reaching its goals, Judaism and Christianity are among the religions which have to be eliminated. People who are guided by the Bible, the Ten Commandments and what the Bible teaches about God, cannot be depended upon to be totally dedicated to the sociological goals of a world management system. They cannot be intimidated into exchanging morals and conscience for sociological goals. This is why the system does not tolerate competition. Its own Positive religion or religion of Humanity must prevail. Sociology’s founder, Auguste Comte, wrote:
“By speaking of Positivism as organic, we imply that it has a social purpose; that purpose being to supersede Theology in the spiritual direction of the human race.”
and,
“Sociology is once for all substituted for Theology as the basis for the religious government of mankind.”
and,
“The last step in this long course of training is now establishing the true form of subjectivity by substitution of Sociology for Theology.”
In 1929, Ross L. Finney was among those working on a new morality for the managed society. He wrote:
“Nor can the new regime be operated with the beliefs of the old regime. . .As for the ideals by which we live, they too must be thought out de novo, and built into an adequate and effective new system of moral education.”
The End of Freedom
The NWO management system’s moral education has nothing to do with freedom or the principles and ideals on which our nation was founded. The late B. F. Skinner, a Harvard University psychologist, put it this way:
“The hypothesis that man is NOT FREE is essential to the application of scientific method to the study of human behavior.”
If you do not want to be a sociologically-controlled and semi-ignorant member of the United Nations New World Order, you need to recognize the importance of knowledge and reject attempts at emotional manipulation and knowledge limitation. The problem-solving and decision-making system of education uses you, plays on your emotions, and tries to alienate you from those who should be closest to you. It creates animosity between you and your classmates; wastes valuable learning time by forcing you to form opinions and listen to the uninformed opinions of your classmates; and discourages intelligent and moral behavior. It turns you against your own country and its Constitution in favor of the United Nations' New World Order management system.
What Can You Do?
Learn to recognize when you are being used, rather than informed. Learn to recognize when you are being led astray. Be like a conscientious researcher and reporter. Do not be afraid to ask probing questions whenever you have doubts about the philosophy behind educational projects, exercises and games, especially if they seem to you to be totally useless or destructive.
If you are to have any hope of keeping the gift of freedom with which you've been blessed, you must know and share the truth. If you have concerns about your education, share them with your parents. Few parents have any idea what goes on in school. It is their responsibility to find out, and your responsibility to help them.
You are not a test animal created to serve the ambition of social scientists and world managers. Do not allow your education to be limited and corrupted as if all you needed was to be trained in obedience to the system of the unConstitutional New World Order.
And remember, if you truly desire it, all knowledge is yours:
“Ask, and it shalt be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shalt be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”
- Matthew 7:7,8~
Monday, February 05, 2007
Friday, October 20, 2006
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?
BY NICK BOSTROM
Department of Philosophy, Oxford University
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
I. INTRODUCTION
Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.
Apart from the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we formulate an assumption that we need to import from the philosophy of mind in order to get the argument started. Second, we consider some empirical reasons for thinking that running vastly many simulations of human minds would be within the capability of a future civilization that has developed many of those technologies that can already be shown to be compatible with known physical laws and engineering constraints. This part is not philosophically necessary but it provides an incentive for paying attention to the rest. Then follows the core of the argument, which makes use of some simple probability theory, and a section providing support for a weak indifference principle that the argument employs. Lastly, we discuss some interpretations of the disjunction, mentioned in the abstract, that forms the conclusion of the simulation argument.
II. THE ASSUMPTION OF SUBSTRATE-INDEPENDENCE
A common assumption in the philosophy of mind is that of substrate-independence. The idea is that mental states can supervene on any of a broad class of physical substrates. Provided a system implements the right sort of computational structures and processes, it can be associated with conscious experiences. It is nor an essential property of consciousness that it is implemented on carbon-based biological neural networks inside a cranium: silicon-based processors inside a computer could in principle do the trick as well.
Arguments for this thesis have been given in the literature, and although it is not entirely uncontroversial, we shall here take it as a given.
The argument we shall present does not, however, depend on any very strong version of functionalism or computationalism. For example, we need not assume that the thesis of substrate-independence is necessarily true (either analytically or metaphysically) ? just that, in fact, a computer running a suitable program would be conscious. Moreover, we need not assume that in order to create a mind on a computer it would be sufficient to program it in such a way that it behaves like a human in all situations, including passing the Turing test etc. We need only the weaker assumption that it would suffice for the generation of subjective experiences that the computational processes of a human brain are structurally replicated in suitably fine-grained detail, such as on the level of individual synapses. This attenuated version of substrate-independence is quite widely accepted.
Neurotransmitters, nerve growth factors, and other chemicals that are smaller than a synapse clearly play a role in human cognition and learning. The substrate-independence thesis is not that the effects of these chemicals are small or irrelevant, but rather that they affect subjective experience only via their direct or indirect influence on computational activities. For example, if there can be no difference in subjective experience without there also being a difference in synaptic discharges, then the requisite detail of simulation is at the synaptic level (or higher).
III. THE TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITS OF COMPUTATION
At our current stage of technological development, we have neither sufficiently powerful hardware nor the requisite software to create conscious minds in computers. But persuasive arguments have been given to the effect that if technological progress continues unabated then these shortcomings will eventually be overcome. Some authors argue that this stage may be only a few decades away.[1] Yet present purposes require no assumptions about the time-scale. The simulation argument works equally well for those who think that it will take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a “posthuman” stage of civilization, where humankind has acquired most of the technological capabilities that one can currently show to be consistent with physical laws and with material and energy constraints.
Such a mature stage of technological development will make it possible to convert planets and other astronomical resources into enormously powerful computers. It is currently hard to be confident in any upper bound on the computing power that may be available to posthuman civilizations. As we are still lacking a “theory of everything”, we cannot rule out the possibility that novel physical phenomena, not allowed for in current physical theories, may be utilized to transcend those constraints[2] that in our current understanding impose theoretical limits on the information processing attainable in a given lump of matter. We can with much greater confidence establish lower bounds on posthuman computation, by assuming only mechanisms that are already understood. For example, Eric Drexler has outlined a design for a system the size of a sugar cube (excluding cooling and power supply) that would perform 10^21 instructions per second.[3] Another author gives a rough estimate of 10^42 operations per second for a computer with a mass on order of a large planet.[4] (If we could create quantum computers, or learn to build computers out of nuclear matter or plasma, we could push closer to the theoretical limits. Seth Lloyd calculates an upper bound for a 1 kg computer of 5*10^50 logical operations per second carried out on ~10^31 bits.[5] However, it suffices for our purposes to use the more conservative estimate that presupposes only currently known design-principles.)The amount of computing power needed to emulate a human mind can likewise be roughly estimated. One estimate, based on how computationally expensive it is to replicate the functionality of a piece of nervous tissue that we have already understood and whose functionality has been replicated in silico, contrast enhancement in the retina, yields a figure of ~10^14 operations per second for the entire human brain.[6] An alternative estimate, based the number of synapses in the brain and their firing frequency, gives a figure of ~10^16-10^17 operations per second.[7] Conceivably, even more could be required if we want to simulate in detail the internal workings of synapses and dentritic trees. However, it is likely that the human central nervous system has a high degree of redundancy on the mircoscale to compensate for the unreliability and noisiness of its neuronal components. One would therefore expect a substantial efficiency gain when using more reliable and versatile non-biological processors.
Memory seems to be a no more stringent constraint than processing power.[8] Moreover, since the maximum human sensory bandwidth is ~10^8 bits per second, simulating all sensory events incurs a negligible cost compared to simulating the cortical activity. We can therefore use the processing power required to simulate the central nervous system as an estimate of the total computational cost of simulating a human mind.
If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power ? how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed ? only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities. The microscopic structure of the inside of the Earth can be safely omitted. Distant astronomical objects can have highly compressed representations: verisimilitude need extend to the narrow band of properties that we can observe from our planet or solar system spacecraft. On the surface of Earth, macroscopic objects in inhabited areas may need to be continuously simulated, but microscopic phenomena could likely be filled in ad hoc. What you see through an electron microscope needs to look unsuspicious, but you usually have no way of confirming its coherence with unobserved parts of the microscopic world. Exceptions arise when we deliberately design systems to harness unobserved microscopic phenomena that operate in accordance with known principles to get results that we are able to independently verify. The paradigmatic case of this is a computer. The simulation may therefore need to include a continuous representation of computers down to the level of individual logic elements. This presents no problem, since our current computing power is negligible by posthuman standards.
Moreover, a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. Should any error occur, the director could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem.
It thus seems plausible that the main computational cost in creating simulations that are indistinguishable from physical reality for human minds in the simulation resides in simulating organic brains down to the neuronal or sub-neuronal level.[9] While it is not possible to get a very exact estimate of the cost of a realistic simulation of human history, we can use ~10^33 - 10^36 operations as a rough estimate[10]. As we gain more experience with virtual reality, we will get a better grasp of the computational requirements for making such worlds appear realistic to their visitors. But in any case, even if our estimate is off by several orders of magnitude, this does not matter much for our argument. We noted that a rough approximation of the computational power of a planetary-mass computer is 10^42 operations per second, and that assumes only already known nanotechnological designs, which are probably far from optimal. A single such a computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind (call this an ancestor-simulation) by using less than one millionth of its processing power for one second. A posthuman civilization may eventually build an astronomical number of such computers. We can conclude that the computing power available to a posthuman civilization is sufficient to run a huge number of ancestor-simulations even it allocates only a minute fraction of its resources to that purpose. We can draw this conclusion even while leaving a substantial margin of error in all our estimates.
· Posthuman civilizations would have enough computing power to run hugely many ancestor-simulations even while using only a tiny fraction of their resources for that purpose.
IV. THE CORE OF THE SIMULATION ARGUMENT
The basic idea of this paper can be expressed roughly as follows: If there were a substantial chance that our civilization will ever get to the posthuman stage and run many ancestor-simulations, then how come you are not living in such a simulation?
We shall develop this idea into a rigorous argument. Let us introduce the following notation:
: Fraction of all human-level technological civilizations that survive to reach a posthuman stage
: Average number of ancestor-simulations run by a posthuman civilization
*: Average number of individuals that have lived in a civilization before it reaches a posthuman stage
The actual fraction of all observers with human-type experiences that live in simulations is then
Writing
for the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations (or that contain at least some individuals who are interested in that and have sufficient resources to run a significant number of such simulations), and 
for the average number of ancestor-simulations run by such interested civilizations, we have
and thus:
(*)
Because of the immense computing power of posthuman civilizations,
is extremely large, as we saw in the previous section. By inspecting (*) we can then see that at least one of the following three propositions must be true:
(1)
(2)
(3)
V. A BLAND INDIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE
We can take a further step and conclude that conditional on the truth of (3), one’s credence in the hypothesis that one is in a simulation should be close to unity. More generally, if we knew that a fraction x of all observers with human-type experiences live in simulations, and we don’t have any information that indicate that our own particular experiences are any more or less likely than other human-type experiences to have been implemented in vivo rather than in machina, then our credence that we are in a simulation should equal x:
(#)
This step is sanctioned by a very weak indifference principle. Let us distinguish two cases. The first case, which is the easiest, is where all the minds in question are like your own in the sense that they are exactly qualitatively identical to yours: they have exactly the same information and the same experiences that you have. The second case is where the minds are “like” each other only in the loose sense of being the sort of minds that are typical of human creatures, but they are qualitatively distinct from one another and each has a distinct set of experiences. I maintain that even in the latter case, where the minds are qualitatively different, the simulation argument still works, provided that you have no information that bears on the question of which of the various minds are simulated and which are implemented biologically.
A detailed defense of a stronger principle, which implies the above stance for both cases as trivial special instances, has been given in the literature.[11] Space does not permit a recapitulation of that defense here, but we can bring out one of the underlying intuitions by bringing to our attention to an analogous situation of a more familiar kind. Suppose that x% of the population has a certain genetic sequence S within the part of their DNA commonly designated as “junk DNA”. Suppose, further, that there are no manifestations of S (short of what would turn up in a gene assay) and that there are no known correlations between having S and any observable characteristic. Then, quite clearly, unless you have had your DNA sequenced, it is rational to assign a credence of x% to the hypothesis that you have S. And this is so quite irrespective of the fact that the people who have S have qualitatively different minds and experiences from the people who don’t have S. (They are different simply because all humans have different experiences from one another, not because of any known link between S and what kind of experiences one has.)
The same reasoning holds if S is not the property of having a certain genetic sequence but instead the property of being in a simulation, assuming only that we have no information that enables us to predict any differences between the experiences of simulated minds and those of the original biological minds.
It should be stressed that the bland indifference principle expressed by (#) prescribes indifference only between hypotheses about which observer you are, when you have no information about which of these observers you are. It does not in general prescribe indifference between hypotheses when you lack specific information about which of the hypotheses is true. In contrast to Laplacean and other more ambitious principles of indifference, it is therefore immune to Bertrand’s paradox and similar predicaments that tend to plague indifference principles of unrestricted scope.
Readers familiar with the Doomsday argument[12] may worry that the bland principle of indifference invoked here is the same assumption that is responsible for getting the Doomsday argument off the ground, and that the counterintuitiveness of some of the implications of the latter incriminates or casts doubt on the validity of the former. This is not so. The Doomsday argument rests on a much stronger and more controversial premiss, namely that one should reason as if one were a random sample from the set of all people who will ever have lived (past, present, and future) even though we know that we are living in the early twenty-first century rather than at some point in the distant past or the future. The bland indifference principle, by contrast, applies only to cases where we have no information about which group of people we belong to.
If betting odds provide some guidance to rational belief, it may also be worth to ponder that if everybody were to place a bet on whether they are in a simulation or not, then if people use the bland principle of indifference, and consequently place their money on being in a simulation if they know that that’s where almost all people are, then almost everyone will win their bets. If they bet on not being in a simulation, then almost everyone will lose. It seems better that the bland indifference principle be heeded.
Further, one can consider a sequence of possible situations in which an increasing fraction of all people live in simulations: 98%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.9999%, and so on. As one approaches the limiting case in which everybody is in a simulation (from which one can deductively infer that one is in a simulation oneself), it is plausible to require that the credence one assigns to being in a simulation gradually approach the limiting case of complete certainty in a matching manner.
VI. INTERPRETATION
The possibility represented by proposition (1) is fairly straightforward. If (1) is true, then humankind will almost certainly fail to reach a posthuman level; for virtually no species at our level of development become posthuman, and it is hard to see any justification for thinking that our own species will be especially privileged or protected from future disasters. Conditional on (1), therefore, we must give a high credence to DOOM, the hypothesis that humankind will go extinct before reaching a posthuman level:
One can imagine hypothetical situations were we have such evidence as would trump knowledge of
. For example, if we discovered that we were about to be hit by a giant meteor, this might suggest that we had been exceptionally unlucky. We could then assign a credence to DOOM larger than our expectation of the fraction of human-level civilizations that fail to reach posthumanity. In the actual case, however, we seem to lack evidence for thinking that we are special in this regard, for better or worse.
Proposition (1) doesn’t by itself imply that we are likely to go extinct soon, only that we are unlikely to reach a posthuman stage. This possibility is compatible with us remaining at, or somewhat above, our current level of technological development for a long time before going extinct. Another way for (1) to be true is if it is likely that technological civilization will collapse. Primitive human societies might then remain on Earth indefinitely.
There are many ways in which humanity could become extinct before reaching posthumanity. Perhaps the most natural interpretation of (1) is that we are likely to go extinct as a result of the development of some powerful but dangerous technology.[13] One candidate is molecular nanotechnology, which in its mature stage would enable the construction of self-replicating nanobots capable of feeding on dirt and organic matter ? a kind of mechanical bacteria. Such nanobots, designed for malicious ends, could cause the extinction of all life on our planet.[14]
The second alternative in the simulation argument’s conclusion is that the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulation is negligibly small. In order for (2) to be true, there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations. If the number of ancestor-simulations created by the interested civilizations is extremely large, the rarity of such civilizations must be correspondingly extreme. Virtually no posthuman civilizations decide to use their resources to run large numbers of ancestor-simulations. Furthermore, virtually all posthuman civilizations lack individuals who have sufficient resources and interest to run ancestor-simulations; or else they have reliably enforced laws that prevent such individuals from acting on their desires.
What force could bring about such convergence? One can speculate that advanced civilizations all develop along a trajectory that leads to the recognition of an ethical prohibition against running ancestor-simulations because of the suffering that is inflicted on the inhabitants of the simulation. However, from our present point of view, it is not clear that creating a human race is immoral. On the contrary, we tend to view the existence of our race as constituting a great ethical value. Moreover, convergence on an ethical view of the immorality of running ancestor-simulations is not enough: it must be combined with convergence on a civilization-wide social structure that enables activities considered immoral to be effectively banned.Another possible convergence point is that almost all individual posthumans in virtually all posthuman civilizations develop in a direction where they lose their desires to run ancestor-simulations. This would require significant changes to the motivations driving their human predecessors, for there are certainly many humans who would like to run ancestor-simulations if they could afford to do so. But perhaps many of our human desires will be regarded as silly by anyone who becomes a posthuman. Maybe the scientific value of ancestor-simulations to a posthuman civilization is negligible (which is not too implausible given its unfathomable intellectual superiority), and maybe posthumans regard recreational activities as merely a very inefficient way of getting pleasure ? which can be obtained much more cheaply by direct stimulation of the brain’s reward centers. One conclusion that follows from (2) is that posthuman societies will be very different from human societies: they will not contain relatively wealthy independent agents who have the full gamut of human-like desires and are free to act on them.
The possibility expressed by alternative (3) is the conceptually most intriguing one. If we are living in a simulation, then the cosmos that we are observing is just a tiny piece of the totality of physical existence. The physics in the universe where the computer is situated that is running the simulation may or may not resemble the physics of the world that we observe. While the world we see is in some sense “real”, it is not located at the fundamental level of reality.
It may be possible for simulated civilizations to become posthuman. They may then run their own ancestor-simulations on powerful computers they build in their simulated universe. Such computers would be “virtual machines”, a familiar concept in computer science. (Java script web-applets, for instance, run on a virtual machine ? a simulated computer ? inside your desktop.) Virtual machines can be stacked: it’s possible to simulate a machine simulating another machine, and so on, in arbitrarily many steps of iteration. If we do go on to create our own ancestor-simulations, this would be strong evidence against (1) and (2), and we would therefore have to conclude that we live in a simulation. Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.
Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage ? the metaphysical status of this claim is somewhat obscure ? there may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.)
Although all the elements of such a system can be naturalistic, even physical, it is possible to draw some loose analogies with religious conceptions of the world. In some ways, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation: the posthumans created the world we see; they are of superior intelligence; they are “omnipotent” in the sense that they can interfere in the workings of our world even in ways that violate its physical laws; and they are “omniscient” in the sense that they can monitor everything that happens. However, all the demigods except those at the fundamental level of reality are subject to sanctions by the more powerful gods living at lower levels.
Further rumination on these themes could climax in a naturalistic theogony that would study the structure of this hierarchy, and the constraints imposed on its inhabitants by the possibility that their actions on their own level may affect the treatment they receive from dwellers of deeper levels. For example, if nobody can be sure that they are at the basement-level, then everybody would have to consider the possibility that their actions will be rewarded or punished, based perhaps on moral criteria, by their simulators. An afterlife would be a real possibility. Because of this fundamental uncertainty, even the basement civilization may have a reason to behave ethically. The fact that it has such a reason for moral behavior would of course add to everybody else’s reason for behaving morally, and so on, in truly virtuous circle. One might get a kind of universal ethical imperative, which it would be in everybody’s self-interest to obey, as it were “from nowhere”.
In addition to ancestor-simulations, one may also consider the possibility of more selective simulations that include only a small group of humans or a single individual. The rest of humanity would then be zombies or “shadow-people” ? humans simulated only at a level sufficient for the fully simulated people not to notice anything suspicious. It is not clear how much cheaper shadow-people would be to simulate than real people. It is not even obvious that it is possible for an entity to behave indistinguishably from a real human and yet lack conscious experience. Even if there are such selective simulations, you should not think that you are in one of them unless you think they are much more numerous than complete simulations. There would have to be about 100 billion times as many “me-simulations” (simulations of the life of only a single mind) as there are ancestor-simulations in order for most simulated persons to be in me-simulations.
There is also the possibility of simulators abridging certain parts of the mental lives of simulated beings and giving them false memories of the sort of experiences that they would typically have had during the omitted interval. If so, one can consider the following (farfetched) solution to the problem of evil: that there is no suffering in the world and all memories of suffering are illusions. Of course, this hypothesis can be seriously entertained only at those times when you are not currently suffering.
Supposing we live in a simulation, what are the implications for us humans? The foregoing remarks notwithstanding, the implications are not all that radical. Our best guide to how our posthuman creators have chosen to set up our world is the standard empirical study of the universe we see. The revisions to most parts of our belief networks would be rather slight and subtle ? in proportion to our lack of confidence in our ability to understand the ways of posthumans. Properly understood, therefore, the truth of (3) should have no tendency to make us “go crazy” or to prevent us from going about our business and making plans and predictions for tomorrow. The chief empirical importance of (3) at the current time seems to lie in its role in the tripartite conclusion established above.[15] We may hope that (3) is true since that would decrease the probability of (1), although if computational constraints make it likely that simulators would terminate a simulation before it reaches a posthuman level, then out best hope would be that (2) is true.
If we learn more about posthuman motivations and resource constraints, maybe as a result of developing towards becoming posthumans ourselves, then the hypothesis that we are simulated will come to have a much richer set of empirical implications.
VII. CONCLUSION
A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.
BY NICK BOSTROM
Department of Philosophy, Oxford University
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
I. INTRODUCTION
Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.
Apart from the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we formulate an assumption that we need to import from the philosophy of mind in order to get the argument started. Second, we consider some empirical reasons for thinking that running vastly many simulations of human minds would be within the capability of a future civilization that has developed many of those technologies that can already be shown to be compatible with known physical laws and engineering constraints. This part is not philosophically necessary but it provides an incentive for paying attention to the rest. Then follows the core of the argument, which makes use of some simple probability theory, and a section providing support for a weak indifference principle that the argument employs. Lastly, we discuss some interpretations of the disjunction, mentioned in the abstract, that forms the conclusion of the simulation argument.
II. THE ASSUMPTION OF SUBSTRATE-INDEPENDENCE
A common assumption in the philosophy of mind is that of substrate-independence. The idea is that mental states can supervene on any of a broad class of physical substrates. Provided a system implements the right sort of computational structures and processes, it can be associated with conscious experiences. It is nor an essential property of consciousness that it is implemented on carbon-based biological neural networks inside a cranium: silicon-based processors inside a computer could in principle do the trick as well.
Arguments for this thesis have been given in the literature, and although it is not entirely uncontroversial, we shall here take it as a given.
The argument we shall present does not, however, depend on any very strong version of functionalism or computationalism. For example, we need not assume that the thesis of substrate-independence is necessarily true (either analytically or metaphysically) ? just that, in fact, a computer running a suitable program would be conscious. Moreover, we need not assume that in order to create a mind on a computer it would be sufficient to program it in such a way that it behaves like a human in all situations, including passing the Turing test etc. We need only the weaker assumption that it would suffice for the generation of subjective experiences that the computational processes of a human brain are structurally replicated in suitably fine-grained detail, such as on the level of individual synapses. This attenuated version of substrate-independence is quite widely accepted.
Neurotransmitters, nerve growth factors, and other chemicals that are smaller than a synapse clearly play a role in human cognition and learning. The substrate-independence thesis is not that the effects of these chemicals are small or irrelevant, but rather that they affect subjective experience only via their direct or indirect influence on computational activities. For example, if there can be no difference in subjective experience without there also being a difference in synaptic discharges, then the requisite detail of simulation is at the synaptic level (or higher).
III. THE TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITS OF COMPUTATION
At our current stage of technological development, we have neither sufficiently powerful hardware nor the requisite software to create conscious minds in computers. But persuasive arguments have been given to the effect that if technological progress continues unabated then these shortcomings will eventually be overcome. Some authors argue that this stage may be only a few decades away.[1] Yet present purposes require no assumptions about the time-scale. The simulation argument works equally well for those who think that it will take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a “posthuman” stage of civilization, where humankind has acquired most of the technological capabilities that one can currently show to be consistent with physical laws and with material and energy constraints.
Such a mature stage of technological development will make it possible to convert planets and other astronomical resources into enormously powerful computers. It is currently hard to be confident in any upper bound on the computing power that may be available to posthuman civilizations. As we are still lacking a “theory of everything”, we cannot rule out the possibility that novel physical phenomena, not allowed for in current physical theories, may be utilized to transcend those constraints[2] that in our current understanding impose theoretical limits on the information processing attainable in a given lump of matter. We can with much greater confidence establish lower bounds on posthuman computation, by assuming only mechanisms that are already understood. For example, Eric Drexler has outlined a design for a system the size of a sugar cube (excluding cooling and power supply) that would perform 10^21 instructions per second.[3] Another author gives a rough estimate of 10^42 operations per second for a computer with a mass on order of a large planet.[4] (If we could create quantum computers, or learn to build computers out of nuclear matter or plasma, we could push closer to the theoretical limits. Seth Lloyd calculates an upper bound for a 1 kg computer of 5*10^50 logical operations per second carried out on ~10^31 bits.[5] However, it suffices for our purposes to use the more conservative estimate that presupposes only currently known design-principles.)The amount of computing power needed to emulate a human mind can likewise be roughly estimated. One estimate, based on how computationally expensive it is to replicate the functionality of a piece of nervous tissue that we have already understood and whose functionality has been replicated in silico, contrast enhancement in the retina, yields a figure of ~10^14 operations per second for the entire human brain.[6] An alternative estimate, based the number of synapses in the brain and their firing frequency, gives a figure of ~10^16-10^17 operations per second.[7] Conceivably, even more could be required if we want to simulate in detail the internal workings of synapses and dentritic trees. However, it is likely that the human central nervous system has a high degree of redundancy on the mircoscale to compensate for the unreliability and noisiness of its neuronal components. One would therefore expect a substantial efficiency gain when using more reliable and versatile non-biological processors.
Memory seems to be a no more stringent constraint than processing power.[8] Moreover, since the maximum human sensory bandwidth is ~10^8 bits per second, simulating all sensory events incurs a negligible cost compared to simulating the cortical activity. We can therefore use the processing power required to simulate the central nervous system as an estimate of the total computational cost of simulating a human mind.
If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power ? how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed ? only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities. The microscopic structure of the inside of the Earth can be safely omitted. Distant astronomical objects can have highly compressed representations: verisimilitude need extend to the narrow band of properties that we can observe from our planet or solar system spacecraft. On the surface of Earth, macroscopic objects in inhabited areas may need to be continuously simulated, but microscopic phenomena could likely be filled in ad hoc. What you see through an electron microscope needs to look unsuspicious, but you usually have no way of confirming its coherence with unobserved parts of the microscopic world. Exceptions arise when we deliberately design systems to harness unobserved microscopic phenomena that operate in accordance with known principles to get results that we are able to independently verify. The paradigmatic case of this is a computer. The simulation may therefore need to include a continuous representation of computers down to the level of individual logic elements. This presents no problem, since our current computing power is negligible by posthuman standards.
Moreover, a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. Should any error occur, the director could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem.
It thus seems plausible that the main computational cost in creating simulations that are indistinguishable from physical reality for human minds in the simulation resides in simulating organic brains down to the neuronal or sub-neuronal level.[9] While it is not possible to get a very exact estimate of the cost of a realistic simulation of human history, we can use ~10^33 - 10^36 operations as a rough estimate[10]. As we gain more experience with virtual reality, we will get a better grasp of the computational requirements for making such worlds appear realistic to their visitors. But in any case, even if our estimate is off by several orders of magnitude, this does not matter much for our argument. We noted that a rough approximation of the computational power of a planetary-mass computer is 10^42 operations per second, and that assumes only already known nanotechnological designs, which are probably far from optimal. A single such a computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind (call this an ancestor-simulation) by using less than one millionth of its processing power for one second. A posthuman civilization may eventually build an astronomical number of such computers. We can conclude that the computing power available to a posthuman civilization is sufficient to run a huge number of ancestor-simulations even it allocates only a minute fraction of its resources to that purpose. We can draw this conclusion even while leaving a substantial margin of error in all our estimates.
· Posthuman civilizations would have enough computing power to run hugely many ancestor-simulations even while using only a tiny fraction of their resources for that purpose.
IV. THE CORE OF THE SIMULATION ARGUMENT
The basic idea of this paper can be expressed roughly as follows: If there were a substantial chance that our civilization will ever get to the posthuman stage and run many ancestor-simulations, then how come you are not living in such a simulation?
We shall develop this idea into a rigorous argument. Let us introduce the following notation:
: Fraction of all human-level technological civilizations that survive to reach a posthuman stage: Average number of ancestor-simulations run by a posthuman civilization*: Average number of individuals that have lived in a civilization before it reaches a posthuman stageThe actual fraction of all observers with human-type experiences that live in simulations is then
Writing
for the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations (or that contain at least some individuals who are interested in that and have sufficient resources to run a significant number of such simulations), and for the average number of ancestor-simulations run by such interested civilizations, we haveand thus:
(*)Because of the immense computing power of posthuman civilizations,
is extremely large, as we saw in the previous section. By inspecting (*) we can then see that at least one of the following three propositions must be true:(1)
(2)
(3)
V. A BLAND INDIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE
We can take a further step and conclude that conditional on the truth of (3), one’s credence in the hypothesis that one is in a simulation should be close to unity. More generally, if we knew that a fraction x of all observers with human-type experiences live in simulations, and we don’t have any information that indicate that our own particular experiences are any more or less likely than other human-type experiences to have been implemented in vivo rather than in machina, then our credence that we are in a simulation should equal x:
(#)This step is sanctioned by a very weak indifference principle. Let us distinguish two cases. The first case, which is the easiest, is where all the minds in question are like your own in the sense that they are exactly qualitatively identical to yours: they have exactly the same information and the same experiences that you have. The second case is where the minds are “like” each other only in the loose sense of being the sort of minds that are typical of human creatures, but they are qualitatively distinct from one another and each has a distinct set of experiences. I maintain that even in the latter case, where the minds are qualitatively different, the simulation argument still works, provided that you have no information that bears on the question of which of the various minds are simulated and which are implemented biologically.
A detailed defense of a stronger principle, which implies the above stance for both cases as trivial special instances, has been given in the literature.[11] Space does not permit a recapitulation of that defense here, but we can bring out one of the underlying intuitions by bringing to our attention to an analogous situation of a more familiar kind. Suppose that x% of the population has a certain genetic sequence S within the part of their DNA commonly designated as “junk DNA”. Suppose, further, that there are no manifestations of S (short of what would turn up in a gene assay) and that there are no known correlations between having S and any observable characteristic. Then, quite clearly, unless you have had your DNA sequenced, it is rational to assign a credence of x% to the hypothesis that you have S. And this is so quite irrespective of the fact that the people who have S have qualitatively different minds and experiences from the people who don’t have S. (They are different simply because all humans have different experiences from one another, not because of any known link between S and what kind of experiences one has.)
The same reasoning holds if S is not the property of having a certain genetic sequence but instead the property of being in a simulation, assuming only that we have no information that enables us to predict any differences between the experiences of simulated minds and those of the original biological minds.
It should be stressed that the bland indifference principle expressed by (#) prescribes indifference only between hypotheses about which observer you are, when you have no information about which of these observers you are. It does not in general prescribe indifference between hypotheses when you lack specific information about which of the hypotheses is true. In contrast to Laplacean and other more ambitious principles of indifference, it is therefore immune to Bertrand’s paradox and similar predicaments that tend to plague indifference principles of unrestricted scope.
Readers familiar with the Doomsday argument[12] may worry that the bland principle of indifference invoked here is the same assumption that is responsible for getting the Doomsday argument off the ground, and that the counterintuitiveness of some of the implications of the latter incriminates or casts doubt on the validity of the former. This is not so. The Doomsday argument rests on a much stronger and more controversial premiss, namely that one should reason as if one were a random sample from the set of all people who will ever have lived (past, present, and future) even though we know that we are living in the early twenty-first century rather than at some point in the distant past or the future. The bland indifference principle, by contrast, applies only to cases where we have no information about which group of people we belong to.
If betting odds provide some guidance to rational belief, it may also be worth to ponder that if everybody were to place a bet on whether they are in a simulation or not, then if people use the bland principle of indifference, and consequently place their money on being in a simulation if they know that that’s where almost all people are, then almost everyone will win their bets. If they bet on not being in a simulation, then almost everyone will lose. It seems better that the bland indifference principle be heeded.
Further, one can consider a sequence of possible situations in which an increasing fraction of all people live in simulations: 98%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.9999%, and so on. As one approaches the limiting case in which everybody is in a simulation (from which one can deductively infer that one is in a simulation oneself), it is plausible to require that the credence one assigns to being in a simulation gradually approach the limiting case of complete certainty in a matching manner.
VI. INTERPRETATION
The possibility represented by proposition (1) is fairly straightforward. If (1) is true, then humankind will almost certainly fail to reach a posthuman level; for virtually no species at our level of development become posthuman, and it is hard to see any justification for thinking that our own species will be especially privileged or protected from future disasters. Conditional on (1), therefore, we must give a high credence to DOOM, the hypothesis that humankind will go extinct before reaching a posthuman level:
One can imagine hypothetical situations were we have such evidence as would trump knowledge of
. For example, if we discovered that we were about to be hit by a giant meteor, this might suggest that we had been exceptionally unlucky. We could then assign a credence to DOOM larger than our expectation of the fraction of human-level civilizations that fail to reach posthumanity. In the actual case, however, we seem to lack evidence for thinking that we are special in this regard, for better or worse.Proposition (1) doesn’t by itself imply that we are likely to go extinct soon, only that we are unlikely to reach a posthuman stage. This possibility is compatible with us remaining at, or somewhat above, our current level of technological development for a long time before going extinct. Another way for (1) to be true is if it is likely that technological civilization will collapse. Primitive human societies might then remain on Earth indefinitely.
There are many ways in which humanity could become extinct before reaching posthumanity. Perhaps the most natural interpretation of (1) is that we are likely to go extinct as a result of the development of some powerful but dangerous technology.[13] One candidate is molecular nanotechnology, which in its mature stage would enable the construction of self-replicating nanobots capable of feeding on dirt and organic matter ? a kind of mechanical bacteria. Such nanobots, designed for malicious ends, could cause the extinction of all life on our planet.[14]
The second alternative in the simulation argument’s conclusion is that the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulation is negligibly small. In order for (2) to be true, there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations. If the number of ancestor-simulations created by the interested civilizations is extremely large, the rarity of such civilizations must be correspondingly extreme. Virtually no posthuman civilizations decide to use their resources to run large numbers of ancestor-simulations. Furthermore, virtually all posthuman civilizations lack individuals who have sufficient resources and interest to run ancestor-simulations; or else they have reliably enforced laws that prevent such individuals from acting on their desires.
What force could bring about such convergence? One can speculate that advanced civilizations all develop along a trajectory that leads to the recognition of an ethical prohibition against running ancestor-simulations because of the suffering that is inflicted on the inhabitants of the simulation. However, from our present point of view, it is not clear that creating a human race is immoral. On the contrary, we tend to view the existence of our race as constituting a great ethical value. Moreover, convergence on an ethical view of the immorality of running ancestor-simulations is not enough: it must be combined with convergence on a civilization-wide social structure that enables activities considered immoral to be effectively banned.Another possible convergence point is that almost all individual posthumans in virtually all posthuman civilizations develop in a direction where they lose their desires to run ancestor-simulations. This would require significant changes to the motivations driving their human predecessors, for there are certainly many humans who would like to run ancestor-simulations if they could afford to do so. But perhaps many of our human desires will be regarded as silly by anyone who becomes a posthuman. Maybe the scientific value of ancestor-simulations to a posthuman civilization is negligible (which is not too implausible given its unfathomable intellectual superiority), and maybe posthumans regard recreational activities as merely a very inefficient way of getting pleasure ? which can be obtained much more cheaply by direct stimulation of the brain’s reward centers. One conclusion that follows from (2) is that posthuman societies will be very different from human societies: they will not contain relatively wealthy independent agents who have the full gamut of human-like desires and are free to act on them.
The possibility expressed by alternative (3) is the conceptually most intriguing one. If we are living in a simulation, then the cosmos that we are observing is just a tiny piece of the totality of physical existence. The physics in the universe where the computer is situated that is running the simulation may or may not resemble the physics of the world that we observe. While the world we see is in some sense “real”, it is not located at the fundamental level of reality.
It may be possible for simulated civilizations to become posthuman. They may then run their own ancestor-simulations on powerful computers they build in their simulated universe. Such computers would be “virtual machines”, a familiar concept in computer science. (Java script web-applets, for instance, run on a virtual machine ? a simulated computer ? inside your desktop.) Virtual machines can be stacked: it’s possible to simulate a machine simulating another machine, and so on, in arbitrarily many steps of iteration. If we do go on to create our own ancestor-simulations, this would be strong evidence against (1) and (2), and we would therefore have to conclude that we live in a simulation. Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.
Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage ? the metaphysical status of this claim is somewhat obscure ? there may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.)
Although all the elements of such a system can be naturalistic, even physical, it is possible to draw some loose analogies with religious conceptions of the world. In some ways, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation: the posthumans created the world we see; they are of superior intelligence; they are “omnipotent” in the sense that they can interfere in the workings of our world even in ways that violate its physical laws; and they are “omniscient” in the sense that they can monitor everything that happens. However, all the demigods except those at the fundamental level of reality are subject to sanctions by the more powerful gods living at lower levels.
Further rumination on these themes could climax in a naturalistic theogony that would study the structure of this hierarchy, and the constraints imposed on its inhabitants by the possibility that their actions on their own level may affect the treatment they receive from dwellers of deeper levels. For example, if nobody can be sure that they are at the basement-level, then everybody would have to consider the possibility that their actions will be rewarded or punished, based perhaps on moral criteria, by their simulators. An afterlife would be a real possibility. Because of this fundamental uncertainty, even the basement civilization may have a reason to behave ethically. The fact that it has such a reason for moral behavior would of course add to everybody else’s reason for behaving morally, and so on, in truly virtuous circle. One might get a kind of universal ethical imperative, which it would be in everybody’s self-interest to obey, as it were “from nowhere”.
In addition to ancestor-simulations, one may also consider the possibility of more selective simulations that include only a small group of humans or a single individual. The rest of humanity would then be zombies or “shadow-people” ? humans simulated only at a level sufficient for the fully simulated people not to notice anything suspicious. It is not clear how much cheaper shadow-people would be to simulate than real people. It is not even obvious that it is possible for an entity to behave indistinguishably from a real human and yet lack conscious experience. Even if there are such selective simulations, you should not think that you are in one of them unless you think they are much more numerous than complete simulations. There would have to be about 100 billion times as many “me-simulations” (simulations of the life of only a single mind) as there are ancestor-simulations in order for most simulated persons to be in me-simulations.
There is also the possibility of simulators abridging certain parts of the mental lives of simulated beings and giving them false memories of the sort of experiences that they would typically have had during the omitted interval. If so, one can consider the following (farfetched) solution to the problem of evil: that there is no suffering in the world and all memories of suffering are illusions. Of course, this hypothesis can be seriously entertained only at those times when you are not currently suffering.
Supposing we live in a simulation, what are the implications for us humans? The foregoing remarks notwithstanding, the implications are not all that radical. Our best guide to how our posthuman creators have chosen to set up our world is the standard empirical study of the universe we see. The revisions to most parts of our belief networks would be rather slight and subtle ? in proportion to our lack of confidence in our ability to understand the ways of posthumans. Properly understood, therefore, the truth of (3) should have no tendency to make us “go crazy” or to prevent us from going about our business and making plans and predictions for tomorrow. The chief empirical importance of (3) at the current time seems to lie in its role in the tripartite conclusion established above.[15] We may hope that (3) is true since that would decrease the probability of (1), although if computational constraints make it likely that simulators would terminate a simulation before it reaches a posthuman level, then out best hope would be that (2) is true.
If we learn more about posthuman motivations and resource constraints, maybe as a result of developing towards becoming posthumans ourselves, then the hypothesis that we are simulated will come to have a much richer set of empirical implications.
VII. CONCLUSION
A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.
REFLECTIONS OF A WORRYFUL MASTER
REFLECTIONS OF A WORRYFUL MASTER
by kayes, a Past Master twice over of an Emulation Lodge
(this article was first published in The Chisel, Jan/Feb issue 1986)
Taking the Chair may be an achievement but it also brings with it an unbroken chain of worries for the ensuing year, beginning at least a month from Installation Day. Suddenly it dawns on Master Elect that it is no easy task being Master and one starts to wonder how some Masters seemed to have done everything with such ease and confidence. Did they have photographic memories or perhaps they have little tape recorders behind their ears?
They say if you start well, all will end well. The Installation Meeting should be relatively simple. Nothing much to do except to invest officers and to close the Lodge but will I be hit with an unexpected bout of stage fright? How many risings? Three or four? And when do I ask District Grand Master whether he wishes to retire? How do I invest the Deacons? Right or left side of pedestal? Remember to speak loud enough with clear diction. Don't smoke too much as it will turn you hoarse and definitely not too much scotch as it causes surprise lapses in memory.
First Regular Meeting and why has it got to be a Third Degree? Impossible to peep at any cue cards. Being not of athletic build I hope I will not fall over in attempting to raise a candidate who is a mere 250 lbs! Have to rely greatly on Director of Ceremonies. Just can't get the Exhortation and Charge right. Which one comes first? Exhortation or Charge? Traditional History even worse. Hope I don't throw in a paragraph of the Tracing Board into the Traditional History. Do not hit candidate with Heavy Mall - only simulate it!
Second Regular Meeting and it is a First Degree. Why can't they have it in a sequence? It will sure make things more logical. Must do well, as it is important for candidate to follow the entire ceremony and understand at least half of what is being said. Why can't all three degrees be done without the lights on? No one can see a red face in the dark! Charge after Initiation must be flawless and what? Did you say District Grand Master is coming? Will the lights and airconditioning fail? They say DGM is on Emulation and no slip up gets by unnoticed and Assistant District Grand Master may come also? He too is on Emulation? Perhaps I will have to fall sick or arrange a business trip to Siberia.
Third Regular Meeting and it is another Initiation. Should be easier this time. A month is not long enough to forget but it seems it will be a Raising again next month. At the rate things are going, I may be the only Master who has not done a Passing! Junior Deacon suddenly called away on urgent business and Inner Guard is ill. Who are the possible replacements? Can D of C and Assistant D of C take over? Did his proposer ask the candidate to come at all?
Committee Meeting and Treasurer reports that funds are critically low and threatens to resign because brethren are not responding to his pleas. Director of Ceremonies says attendance at Lodge of Instruction poor. Caterer says he will not serve any more food as the constantly varying dinner times are driving his microwave ovens crazy. Someone says he has not been receiving Summonses for three months and Secretary asks for his postcode. Discussion on Charity and that word reveals a myriad of interpretations.
Visitation Night. Hope all brethren particularly officers are punctual. Are there sufficient people to help at the bar? Do not wish to see visitors outnumbering us. Wonder whether seating arrangements at Festive Board are properly done. New caterer - hope he serves at least warm food and hot coffee. Tell the Scots we do not have haggis. Irish coffee yes.
Installation Meeting and glad to know one is vacating the Chair but no sooner starts to miss it. District Grand Master is definitely attending. Make sure generators are in working order and candles ready. Must remember Inner Working. Do not close Board of Installed Masters prematurely. Propose the toast to the new Worshipful Master and everything's over. Now to start worrying about the job of being the Immediate Past Master.
by kayes, a Past Master twice over of an Emulation Lodge
(this article was first published in The Chisel, Jan/Feb issue 1986)
Taking the Chair may be an achievement but it also brings with it an unbroken chain of worries for the ensuing year, beginning at least a month from Installation Day. Suddenly it dawns on Master Elect that it is no easy task being Master and one starts to wonder how some Masters seemed to have done everything with such ease and confidence. Did they have photographic memories or perhaps they have little tape recorders behind their ears?
They say if you start well, all will end well. The Installation Meeting should be relatively simple. Nothing much to do except to invest officers and to close the Lodge but will I be hit with an unexpected bout of stage fright? How many risings? Three or four? And when do I ask District Grand Master whether he wishes to retire? How do I invest the Deacons? Right or left side of pedestal? Remember to speak loud enough with clear diction. Don't smoke too much as it will turn you hoarse and definitely not too much scotch as it causes surprise lapses in memory.
First Regular Meeting and why has it got to be a Third Degree? Impossible to peep at any cue cards. Being not of athletic build I hope I will not fall over in attempting to raise a candidate who is a mere 250 lbs! Have to rely greatly on Director of Ceremonies. Just can't get the Exhortation and Charge right. Which one comes first? Exhortation or Charge? Traditional History even worse. Hope I don't throw in a paragraph of the Tracing Board into the Traditional History. Do not hit candidate with Heavy Mall - only simulate it!
Second Regular Meeting and it is a First Degree. Why can't they have it in a sequence? It will sure make things more logical. Must do well, as it is important for candidate to follow the entire ceremony and understand at least half of what is being said. Why can't all three degrees be done without the lights on? No one can see a red face in the dark! Charge after Initiation must be flawless and what? Did you say District Grand Master is coming? Will the lights and airconditioning fail? They say DGM is on Emulation and no slip up gets by unnoticed and Assistant District Grand Master may come also? He too is on Emulation? Perhaps I will have to fall sick or arrange a business trip to Siberia.
Third Regular Meeting and it is another Initiation. Should be easier this time. A month is not long enough to forget but it seems it will be a Raising again next month. At the rate things are going, I may be the only Master who has not done a Passing! Junior Deacon suddenly called away on urgent business and Inner Guard is ill. Who are the possible replacements? Can D of C and Assistant D of C take over? Did his proposer ask the candidate to come at all?
Committee Meeting and Treasurer reports that funds are critically low and threatens to resign because brethren are not responding to his pleas. Director of Ceremonies says attendance at Lodge of Instruction poor. Caterer says he will not serve any more food as the constantly varying dinner times are driving his microwave ovens crazy. Someone says he has not been receiving Summonses for three months and Secretary asks for his postcode. Discussion on Charity and that word reveals a myriad of interpretations.
Visitation Night. Hope all brethren particularly officers are punctual. Are there sufficient people to help at the bar? Do not wish to see visitors outnumbering us. Wonder whether seating arrangements at Festive Board are properly done. New caterer - hope he serves at least warm food and hot coffee. Tell the Scots we do not have haggis. Irish coffee yes.
Installation Meeting and glad to know one is vacating the Chair but no sooner starts to miss it. District Grand Master is definitely attending. Make sure generators are in working order and candles ready. Must remember Inner Working. Do not close Board of Installed Masters prematurely. Propose the toast to the new Worshipful Master and everything's over. Now to start worrying about the job of being the Immediate Past Master.
Freemasonry in Malaysia and Singapore
Masonically speaking, Malaysia and Singapore are grouped together and operate under three constitutions, English, Scottish and Irish, and come under:
the District Grand Lodge of the Eastern Archipelago (English)
the District Grand Lodge of the Middle East (Scottish)
the Inspectorate Area of South East Asia (Irish)
Each district is headed by a District Grand Master with the exception of the Irish, where, because there are only three lodges in the Inspectorate Area, the head is a Grand Inspector.
In terms of lodges the breakdown is as follows:
In Singapore
English 8 - Scottish 2 - Irish 1
In Malaysia
English 20 - Scottish 9 - Irish 1
In Thailand
Scottish 2 - Irish 1
The largest number of lodges in Malaysia are found in the capital city, Kuala Lumpur, with Masonic Halls also in all the main towns and cities of Malaysia.
In addition, at most of these Masonic Halls, there are regular meetings of Chapters.
Masonic meetings are held throughout the year with no break, and the normal time of tyling is 1830 hours. Labour is always followed by a full course dinner and visitors are usually asked to "sing for their supper". Normal dress code is black suit and bow and in some cases white gloves, but overseas visitors are welcome in any suit and tie. Visitors should come prepared with their "demit" certificates, GL certs or other identification, and also be prepared to be tested before entry.To avoid embarrassment, please check if your GL is in fraternal relations with the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland before visiting.
Contact addresses:
In Malaysia
Dewan Freemason,
213 Jalan Tun Razak,
50400, Kuala Lumpur
In Singapore
Freemason's Hall,
23-A Coleman Street,
Singapore 0617.
Raffles City P.O. Box 589,
Singapore 9117
the District Grand Lodge of the Eastern Archipelago (English)
the District Grand Lodge of the Middle East (Scottish)
the Inspectorate Area of South East Asia (Irish)
Each district is headed by a District Grand Master with the exception of the Irish, where, because there are only three lodges in the Inspectorate Area, the head is a Grand Inspector.
In terms of lodges the breakdown is as follows:
In Singapore
English 8 - Scottish 2 - Irish 1
In Malaysia
English 20 - Scottish 9 - Irish 1
In Thailand
Scottish 2 - Irish 1
The largest number of lodges in Malaysia are found in the capital city, Kuala Lumpur, with Masonic Halls also in all the main towns and cities of Malaysia.
In addition, at most of these Masonic Halls, there are regular meetings of Chapters.
Masonic meetings are held throughout the year with no break, and the normal time of tyling is 1830 hours. Labour is always followed by a full course dinner and visitors are usually asked to "sing for their supper". Normal dress code is black suit and bow and in some cases white gloves, but overseas visitors are welcome in any suit and tie. Visitors should come prepared with their "demit" certificates, GL certs or other identification, and also be prepared to be tested before entry.To avoid embarrassment, please check if your GL is in fraternal relations with the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland before visiting.
Contact addresses:
In Malaysia
Dewan Freemason,
213 Jalan Tun Razak,
50400, Kuala Lumpur
In Singapore
Freemason's Hall,
23-A Coleman Street,
Singapore 0617.
Raffles City P.O. Box 589,
Singapore 9117
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Masonic Terrorists
Masonic lodges in Scotland have been completely infiltrated by a Northern Irish terrorist gang, and anti-terror police are now engaged in a massive campaign to root the rogue members from the ranks of Scottish Freemasons.
Members of the outlawed Ulster Defense Association managed to hold secret strategy sessions within the Masonic temples and even held huge fundraising parties inside the lodges, all under cover of being regular members of the secret society.
"The UDA is one of Ulster's most brutal paramilitary organizations," Scotland's Sunday Herald reported this week.
"Using the cover-name the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) it waged a campaign of sectarian assassination against Northern Ireland's Catholics. One of its most notorious 'brigadiers,' Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair, fled to Ayrshire after his expulsion from Belfast following an internecine loyalist feud."
"I was horrified to find out that this had been going on," said one lodge official, provincial grand master David Wishart.
It's hardly the first time the esoteric order has been used by those wanting political change, whether peaceful or violent.
Freemasons trace their secret society back to the time of King Solomon and the Pharoahs. But history only leads as far back as the early 1300s, when documents first revealed the London Masons Company and a Masonic lodge at York in Northern England.
Masonic lodges have become the headquarters of many underground groups over the centuries, including the freethinking Bavarian Illuminati formed by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, the anti-royalists who plotted the French Revolution of 1789, and the American intellectuals who instigated the Revolutionary War against England.
Masonic rituals are the source of everything from Aleister Crowley's satanic magick to the feminist Wicca movement. There's even a mystical Boy Scout-style youth group called the Order of De Molay, named after the last grand master of the Knights Templar who was burned at the stake by French King Philip the Fair.
As a movement dedicated to "the doctrine of religious and intellectual tolerance" and natural rights of mankind, Freemasons were regularly targeted by kings and popes, with statutes and edicts delivered over the centuries that demanded the closing of Masonic temples.
But these days, conspiracies hatched within the private walls of Masonic lodges are less likely to be about the edification of humanity.
Besides the current outrage in Scotland, U.K. lodges have been caught up in all manner of unseemly activities -- including brutal police departments in which every cop was a Mason. The abuses were so widespread that in 1998 a new law was unveiled by Home Secretary Jack Straw demanding judges, police and prosecutors declare their membership in secret fraternities.
One of the most notorious recent abuses of a Masonic lodge occurred in Italy, where neo-fascist elites created the P2 lodge. From 1965 to 1981, the lodge directly controlled Italian politics and much of the European banking industry, not to mention the Vatican. Anyone who got in their way was ritually murdered.
As gruesome ritual murders, bloody Vatican intrigue, assasinations, banking scandals, bizarre CIA torture schemes and the usual political corruption have hardly vanished in Italy, the P2 lodge most likely still exists under a new cover.
America laughs at Shriners
The secretive Freemasons have a weird problem in America. While there's never been more popular interest in "the craft," not many people actually want to join the ritualistic fraternity. (An upcoming Dan Brown book about Masons in America and a sequel to the popular "National Treasure" movie are just two of the big-money entertainment projects covering the history of U.S. Freemasons.)
The Shriners, an Freemasonry spinoff best known for financing burn wards and driving little tiny cars while wearing Fez hats, are a good example of the decline of Masonry in the United States.
Their numbers have dropped by half, to just 411,000 members. In 1980, there were nearly a million Shriners.
The secret fraternity has been holding marketing meetings to come up with ways to lure younger men to the organization -- because at the rate Shriners are dropping dead, there won't be any in a few years.
But Americans don't join such esoteric clubs these days, both because Americans have become increasingly isolated and lonely during the past 20 years, and also because those few who still take part in social activities find the Shriners to be ridiculous.
American Freemasonry hit its peak in 1959, when 4 million U.S. men belonged to the brotherhood, while hundreds of thousands of their wives belonged to Masonic sisterhoods.
Today, there are only 1.5 million U.S. Freemasons, and the iconic Masons' lodges on every Main Street in America are mostly empty today, with major lodges in big cities generally converted to concert halls or event centers.
Members of the outlawed Ulster Defense Association managed to hold secret strategy sessions within the Masonic temples and even held huge fundraising parties inside the lodges, all under cover of being regular members of the secret society.
"The UDA is one of Ulster's most brutal paramilitary organizations," Scotland's Sunday Herald reported this week.
"Using the cover-name the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) it waged a campaign of sectarian assassination against Northern Ireland's Catholics. One of its most notorious 'brigadiers,' Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair, fled to Ayrshire after his expulsion from Belfast following an internecine loyalist feud."
"I was horrified to find out that this had been going on," said one lodge official, provincial grand master David Wishart.
It's hardly the first time the esoteric order has been used by those wanting political change, whether peaceful or violent.
Freemasons trace their secret society back to the time of King Solomon and the Pharoahs. But history only leads as far back as the early 1300s, when documents first revealed the London Masons Company and a Masonic lodge at York in Northern England.
Masonic lodges have become the headquarters of many underground groups over the centuries, including the freethinking Bavarian Illuminati formed by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, the anti-royalists who plotted the French Revolution of 1789, and the American intellectuals who instigated the Revolutionary War against England.
Masonic rituals are the source of everything from Aleister Crowley's satanic magick to the feminist Wicca movement. There's even a mystical Boy Scout-style youth group called the Order of De Molay, named after the last grand master of the Knights Templar who was burned at the stake by French King Philip the Fair.
As a movement dedicated to "the doctrine of religious and intellectual tolerance" and natural rights of mankind, Freemasons were regularly targeted by kings and popes, with statutes and edicts delivered over the centuries that demanded the closing of Masonic temples.
But these days, conspiracies hatched within the private walls of Masonic lodges are less likely to be about the edification of humanity.
Besides the current outrage in Scotland, U.K. lodges have been caught up in all manner of unseemly activities -- including brutal police departments in which every cop was a Mason. The abuses were so widespread that in 1998 a new law was unveiled by Home Secretary Jack Straw demanding judges, police and prosecutors declare their membership in secret fraternities.
One of the most notorious recent abuses of a Masonic lodge occurred in Italy, where neo-fascist elites created the P2 lodge. From 1965 to 1981, the lodge directly controlled Italian politics and much of the European banking industry, not to mention the Vatican. Anyone who got in their way was ritually murdered.
As gruesome ritual murders, bloody Vatican intrigue, assasinations, banking scandals, bizarre CIA torture schemes and the usual political corruption have hardly vanished in Italy, the P2 lodge most likely still exists under a new cover.
America laughs at Shriners
The secretive Freemasons have a weird problem in America. While there's never been more popular interest in "the craft," not many people actually want to join the ritualistic fraternity. (An upcoming Dan Brown book about Masons in America and a sequel to the popular "National Treasure" movie are just two of the big-money entertainment projects covering the history of U.S. Freemasons.)
The Shriners, an Freemasonry spinoff best known for financing burn wards and driving little tiny cars while wearing Fez hats, are a good example of the decline of Masonry in the United States.
Their numbers have dropped by half, to just 411,000 members. In 1980, there were nearly a million Shriners.
The secret fraternity has been holding marketing meetings to come up with ways to lure younger men to the organization -- because at the rate Shriners are dropping dead, there won't be any in a few years.
But Americans don't join such esoteric clubs these days, both because Americans have become increasingly isolated and lonely during the past 20 years, and also because those few who still take part in social activities find the Shriners to be ridiculous.
American Freemasonry hit its peak in 1959, when 4 million U.S. men belonged to the brotherhood, while hundreds of thousands of their wives belonged to Masonic sisterhoods.
Today, there are only 1.5 million U.S. Freemasons, and the iconic Masons' lodges on every Main Street in America are mostly empty today, with major lodges in big cities generally converted to concert halls or event centers.
Is Masonry A Religion?
The answer to this question depends upon whom you ask. The Grand Lodge of Indiana publishes a small tract titled Freemasonry, A Way Of Life. This tract, given to outsiders, says, "Though religious in character, Masonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for one." This would be good, except the story changes after a man has become a Mason. For example, the Indiana Monitor says, "Freemasonry is a charitable, benevolent, educational, and religious society." The Kentucky Monitor goes even further when it states, "...as Masons we are taught that no man should ever enter upon any great or important undertaking without first invoking the blessing of Deity. This is because Masonry is a religious institution..." Albert Pike (a 33rd Degree Mason), one of the most celebrated Masonic scholars, claims that "every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion." (Morals and Dogma, p. 213). This book was published under the auspices of the Supreme Council of the Thirty-Third Degree of the Scottish Rite.
The problem is that the Lodge lies to candidates before their initiation. "Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hereticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it ... So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters away." (Morals and Dogma, p. 105). Can you imagine a sane man joining any organization if he knew they were going to "intentionally" mislead him?
Another Masonic scholar, Albert Mackey (a 33rd Degree Mason), claims the only reason to defend Masonry is because of its religious element. "I contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Masonry is, in every sense of the word, except one, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution that it is indebted solely to the religious element which it contains for its origin and for its continued existence, that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good." (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 727).
The Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist church has issued a report urging men not to join the Masonic Lodge since it is a "competitor of Christianity." The report also states, "There is a great danger that the Christian who becomes a Freemason will find himself compromising his Christian beliefs or his allegiance to Christ, perhaps without realizing what he is doing." (Evansville Courier, June 13, 1985). If the Methodist church can understand this, why can't some of my brethren? Listen to Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
The problem is that the Lodge lies to candidates before their initiation. "Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hereticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it ... So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters away." (Morals and Dogma, p. 105). Can you imagine a sane man joining any organization if he knew they were going to "intentionally" mislead him?
Another Masonic scholar, Albert Mackey (a 33rd Degree Mason), claims the only reason to defend Masonry is because of its religious element. "I contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Masonry is, in every sense of the word, except one, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution that it is indebted solely to the religious element which it contains for its origin and for its continued existence, that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good." (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 727).
The Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist church has issued a report urging men not to join the Masonic Lodge since it is a "competitor of Christianity." The report also states, "There is a great danger that the Christian who becomes a Freemason will find himself compromising his Christian beliefs or his allegiance to Christ, perhaps without realizing what he is doing." (Evansville Courier, June 13, 1985). If the Methodist church can understand this, why can't some of my brethren? Listen to Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
The Lost Tribes of Israel
Around 926 b.c., the kingdom of Israel split in two. Up to that point, all twelve tribes of Israel (plus the priestly tribe of Levi) had been united under the monarchies of Saul, David, and Solomon. But when Solomon’s son Rehoboam ascended to the throne, the ten Northern tribes rebelled and seceded from the union. This left only two tribes?Judah and Benjamin (plus much of Levi)?under the control of the king in Jerusalem. From that time on, the tribes were divided into two nations, which came to be called the House of Israel (the Northern ten tribes) and the House of Judah (the Southern two tribes).
This situation continued until around 723 B.C., when the Assyrians conquered the Northern kingdom. To keep conquered nations in subjection, it was Assyrian policy to break them up by deporting their native populations to other areas and resettling the land with newcomers. When the House of Israel was conquered, most people belonging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom, including places near Nineveh, Haran, and on what is now the Iran-Iraq border. They were replaced by settlers from locations in or near Babylon and Syria.
These settlers intermarried, together with the remaining Israelites, and became the Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament (a few hundred of whom still survive today). The Israelites who had been deported also intermarried with the peoples of the places where they had been resettled. They eventually lost their distinct identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to history. Some refer to them as "the lost tribes of Israel."
A movement called "British Israelism" claims to have found the ten "lost tribes," however, and in some very unlikely places.
For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Church of God." Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view.
British Israelism was not Armstrong’s only eccentric view. Among other things, he believed in Saturday rather than Sunday worship and, most seriously, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and claimed that individual humans could be added to the Godhead.
After Armstrong’s death, the Worldwide Church of God did a serious review of the doctrines it had taught up to that point and moved to a more biblically and theologically orthodox position. Today, the organization is basically another Evangelical Protestant church (they have even been admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals), though with a few distinctive practices. Many of their congregations still worship on Saturdays, for example, but they no longer regard keeping the Jewish Sabbath and feasts as points of doctrine. They have embraced the doctrine of the Trinity, denied that created beings can become part of the Godhead, and acknowledged that other churches contain true Christians. They have also rejected the distinctive idea behind British Israelism?the claim that the lost tribes of Israel are to be specially identified with the Anglo-Saxons.
Unfortunately, there are still advocates of British Israelism out there (including some groups that split off from the Worldwide Church of God when it underwent its doctrinal renewal), and, though the book is out of print, Herbert W. Armstrong’s The United States and Britain in Prophecy continues to circulate.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy teaches the notion that the Lost Tribes of Israel are really the descendants of Anglo-Saxons, which is to say the British and Americans of British extraction.
This exotic doctrine had been around for decades before Herbert W. Armstrong founded his church in 1933, and it appeals, naturally enough, to those of British heritage. After all, who wouldn’t want to be a member of the "chosen race" (assuming there is one)? And according to Armstrong, that’s precisely what the Anglo-Saxons are?God’s chosen race, where can be found the direct descendants of King David and, even today, the true "heirs" to King David’s throne.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy opens with this epigraph: "The prophecies of the Bible have been grievously misunderstood. And no wonder! For the vital key, needed to unlock prophetic doors to understanding, had become lost. That key is a definite knowledge of the true identity of the American and British peoples in biblical prophecy." Only the first sentence of this epigraph is strictly correct, and a good share of the "grievous misunderstanding" is by people who put faith in the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong.
The Argument Begins
"We know Bible prophecies definitely refer to Russia, Italy, Ethiopia, Libya, and Egypt of today. Could they then ignore modern nations like Britain and America? Is it reasonable?" This is how the argument begins, and notice what kind of argument it is. If these "lesser" countries are mentioned in Scripture, would it be fair for God to ignore us, important as we are? (We won’t examine here the highly dubious premise that Russia is mentioned in Scripture.) You might call this an "appeal to pride."
Never fear, says Armstrong. "The fact is, [the British and Americans] are mentioned more often than any other race [sic]. Yet their prophetic identity has remained hidden to the many." Why is that? you ask. Because the Bible doesn’t refer to them by their modern names, but by an ancient name. And what is that name? None other than Israel.
"Hold it!" you say. The people who came from Israel are Jews. Britons and Americans, for the most part, aren’t Jewish. How can one claim otherwise? Easily. Armstrong assures us that, "The house of Israel is not Jewish! Those who constitute it are not Jews, and never were! That fact we shall now see conclusively, beyond refute."
Actually, there is something of a point here. The term "Jew" originated as a way of referring to the people of the southern kingdom of Judah, whether their own tribe was Judah, Benjamin, or Levi. The term appears late in Israel’s history?after the division into northern and southern kingdoms?and it can be fairly claimed that the term does not apply to the members of the ten northern tribes, who are properly known as "Israelites" since they belonged to the House of Israel rather than the House of Judah.
Armstrong asserted: "Certainly this proves that the Jews are a different nation altogether from the House of Israel," claims Armstrong. "The Jews of today are Judah! They call their nation ‘Israel’ today because they, too, descend from the patriarch Israel or Jacob. But remember that the ‘House of Israel’?the ten tribes that separated from Judah?does not mean Jew! Whoever the lost ten tribes of Israel are today, they are not Jews!"
"By the year 721 B.C., the House of Israel was conquered and its people were soon driven out of their own land?out of their homes and cities?and carried captives to Assyria, near the southern shores of the Caspian Sea!" So it was in 721 B.C. that the Lost Tribes got "lost."
The Year Nothing Happened
Had the tribes remained faithful to God, all would have been well, Armstrong explains. "But, if they refused and rebelled, they were to be punished seven times?a duration of 2,520 years?in slavery, servitude, and want." They did rebel, and Armstrong theorizes that their punishment extended from 721 B.C. to A.D. 1800.
And what remarkable thing happened in 1800? Well, if we don’t count the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency of the United States, not a whole lot. In fact, 1800 was a pretty dull year for history. But Armstrong disagrees, saying that from that date, Britain and America became world powers; the former (at that time) politically, and the latter economically (and later, also politically).
According to Armstrong’s scheme, the figure of "2,520 years of punishment" is arrived at by multiplying the "seven years of punishment" by 360?the number of days in the year as it was reckoned by the ancients?on the principle that each "day" of punishment really stood for a whole year of punishment. If you think this is convoluted reasoning, just wait until you read the remainder of the argument in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It’s enough to note here that Armstrong determines from Scripture that the Lost Tribes ended up on islands in the sea, and these islands are northwest of Palestine.
We’re told, for example, that the forty-ninth chapter of Isaiah begins with, "Listen, O isles, unto me." Do you see how this suggests the British Isles? Armstrong says, "Take a map of Europe. Lay a line due northwest of Jerusalem across the continent of Europe, until you come to the sea, and then to the islands in the sea! This line takes you direct to the British Isles!"
The skeptic might note that the line first comes to the Aegean islands, which are also in the sea?the Mediterranean Sea?but this would mean the Greeks are the Lost Tribes, therefore, the theory would not play into the desires of some British or Americans to identify themselves with the lost tribes.
Linguistic Legerdemain
You want more proof? Armstrong has it. "The House of Israel," he explains, "is the ‘covenant people.’ The Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ is brit [b’rith]. And the word for ‘covenant man,’ or ‘covenant people,’ would therefore sound, in English word order, Brit-ish (the word ish means ‘man’ in Hebrew, and it is also an English suffix on nouns and adjectives). And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the ‘British’? And they reside in the ‘British Isles’!"
This reasoning may impress some, but no linguist would take this seriously. The word "British" is not derived from Hebrew but from the Celtic word Brettas. It’s significant that the Celtic Brettas referred to the Britons, who were inhabitants of England before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons that Armstrong claims were Israelites. One possible reason for Armstrong’s linguistic confusions may be that in Webster’s Diction-ary (for example, in the 3,200-page unabridged edition published in 1932?an edition Armstrong may have had access to) the entry for b’rith (Hebrew: covenant) appears sandwiched between the entries for "Britannic" and "Briticism." Perhaps he simply didn’t read carefully enough and assumed, wrongly, that b’rith must somehow be etymologically connected with the other the words before and after pertaining to things British. Neither does the common English suffix -ish derive from the Hebrew word for man. Instead, it derives from the Greek diminutive suffix -iskos
It was bad enough to suggest that the word "British" is Hebrew, but he also made another claim: If you take the name "Isaac," you see it’s easy for someone to drop the "I" when speaking quickly and to end up with "Saac" as the name of the patriarch. He had descendants, of course, and these may be called "Saac’s sons," from which we get the word "Saxons."
"Is it only coincidence," asks Armstrong, "that ‘Saxons’ sounds the same as ‘Saac’s sons’?sons of Isaac?" This doesn’t even qualify as a coincidence, since Armstrong had to make up the nickname of "Saac" in order for the "coincidence" to exist. In reality, the term "Saxon" is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word "seax," which means knife or dagger, not the Hebrew word "Isaac" (Yitskhaq), which means "laughter" (cf. Gen. 17:15?19, 18:9?15).
Another Remarkable Coincidence?
Armstrong found other coincidences. When the Lost Tribes were scattered, he says, they "brought with them certain remarkable things, including a harp and a wonderful stone called lia-fail, or stone of destiny. A peculiar coincidence is that Hebrew reads from right to left, while English reads from left to right. Read this name either way?and it still is lia-fail. Another strange coincidence?or is it just coincidence??is that many kings in the history of Ireland, Scotland, and England have been coronated sitting over a remarkable stone?including the present queen [sic]. The stone rests today in Westminster Abbey in London, and the coronation chair is built over and around it. A sign once beside it labeled it ‘Jacob’s pillar-stone.’"
Here Armstrong’s argument becomes even weaker. After all, one could note that Hebrew and English are not the only languages which, when contrasted, are read in different directions. For example, Arabic is read right to left, while Gaelic is read left to right. What does that prove? Nothing! Just as Armstrong’s muddled reasoning proves nothing at all about a connection between Hebrew and English. If it did, one could just as easily "prove" that the Lost Tribes were also responsible for bringing the Blarney Stone with them. And that’s just plain blarney.
Armstrongism’s Appeal
What makes Armstrong’s notion so attractive to some folks? First, it appeals to their nationalistic vanity: "I’m of English descent, and now I see that I’m right in the thick of things, biblically speaking. Having English blood in my veins makes me special. It puts me above the rest of the crowd." It also perpetuates ethnic prejudice: "Thank God I’m not Italian! I never liked Italians anyway, and now I see they aren’t descended from the Lost Tribes and so are only secondary players in the divine drama?something I always suspected."
At first glance, Armstrong’s argument seems to be based on a sophisticated understanding of Scripture: "Armstrong provides lots of citations, and I can’t find fault with his argument. It’s so convoluted and technical it must be right." But, still, it’s wrong, no matter how satisfying it seems to some.
This situation continued until around 723 B.C., when the Assyrians conquered the Northern kingdom. To keep conquered nations in subjection, it was Assyrian policy to break them up by deporting their native populations to other areas and resettling the land with newcomers. When the House of Israel was conquered, most people belonging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom, including places near Nineveh, Haran, and on what is now the Iran-Iraq border. They were replaced by settlers from locations in or near Babylon and Syria.
These settlers intermarried, together with the remaining Israelites, and became the Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament (a few hundred of whom still survive today). The Israelites who had been deported also intermarried with the peoples of the places where they had been resettled. They eventually lost their distinct identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to history. Some refer to them as "the lost tribes of Israel."
A movement called "British Israelism" claims to have found the ten "lost tribes," however, and in some very unlikely places.
For many years, one of the leaders in the British Israelism movement was Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Church of God." Especially for Americans, Armstrong was just about the only person they ever heard advocating British Israelism. With his own paid television program, Armstrong regularly advertised his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, which advocated the view.
British Israelism was not Armstrong’s only eccentric view. Among other things, he believed in Saturday rather than Sunday worship and, most seriously, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and claimed that individual humans could be added to the Godhead.
After Armstrong’s death, the Worldwide Church of God did a serious review of the doctrines it had taught up to that point and moved to a more biblically and theologically orthodox position. Today, the organization is basically another Evangelical Protestant church (they have even been admitted to the National Association of Evangelicals), though with a few distinctive practices. Many of their congregations still worship on Saturdays, for example, but they no longer regard keeping the Jewish Sabbath and feasts as points of doctrine. They have embraced the doctrine of the Trinity, denied that created beings can become part of the Godhead, and acknowledged that other churches contain true Christians. They have also rejected the distinctive idea behind British Israelism?the claim that the lost tribes of Israel are to be specially identified with the Anglo-Saxons.
Unfortunately, there are still advocates of British Israelism out there (including some groups that split off from the Worldwide Church of God when it underwent its doctrinal renewal), and, though the book is out of print, Herbert W. Armstrong’s The United States and Britain in Prophecy continues to circulate.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy teaches the notion that the Lost Tribes of Israel are really the descendants of Anglo-Saxons, which is to say the British and Americans of British extraction.
This exotic doctrine had been around for decades before Herbert W. Armstrong founded his church in 1933, and it appeals, naturally enough, to those of British heritage. After all, who wouldn’t want to be a member of the "chosen race" (assuming there is one)? And according to Armstrong, that’s precisely what the Anglo-Saxons are?God’s chosen race, where can be found the direct descendants of King David and, even today, the true "heirs" to King David’s throne.
The United States and Britain in Prophecy opens with this epigraph: "The prophecies of the Bible have been grievously misunderstood. And no wonder! For the vital key, needed to unlock prophetic doors to understanding, had become lost. That key is a definite knowledge of the true identity of the American and British peoples in biblical prophecy." Only the first sentence of this epigraph is strictly correct, and a good share of the "grievous misunderstanding" is by people who put faith in the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong.
The Argument Begins
"We know Bible prophecies definitely refer to Russia, Italy, Ethiopia, Libya, and Egypt of today. Could they then ignore modern nations like Britain and America? Is it reasonable?" This is how the argument begins, and notice what kind of argument it is. If these "lesser" countries are mentioned in Scripture, would it be fair for God to ignore us, important as we are? (We won’t examine here the highly dubious premise that Russia is mentioned in Scripture.) You might call this an "appeal to pride."
Never fear, says Armstrong. "The fact is, [the British and Americans] are mentioned more often than any other race [sic]. Yet their prophetic identity has remained hidden to the many." Why is that? you ask. Because the Bible doesn’t refer to them by their modern names, but by an ancient name. And what is that name? None other than Israel.
"Hold it!" you say. The people who came from Israel are Jews. Britons and Americans, for the most part, aren’t Jewish. How can one claim otherwise? Easily. Armstrong assures us that, "The house of Israel is not Jewish! Those who constitute it are not Jews, and never were! That fact we shall now see conclusively, beyond refute."
Actually, there is something of a point here. The term "Jew" originated as a way of referring to the people of the southern kingdom of Judah, whether their own tribe was Judah, Benjamin, or Levi. The term appears late in Israel’s history?after the division into northern and southern kingdoms?and it can be fairly claimed that the term does not apply to the members of the ten northern tribes, who are properly known as "Israelites" since they belonged to the House of Israel rather than the House of Judah.
Armstrong asserted: "Certainly this proves that the Jews are a different nation altogether from the House of Israel," claims Armstrong. "The Jews of today are Judah! They call their nation ‘Israel’ today because they, too, descend from the patriarch Israel or Jacob. But remember that the ‘House of Israel’?the ten tribes that separated from Judah?does not mean Jew! Whoever the lost ten tribes of Israel are today, they are not Jews!"
"By the year 721 B.C., the House of Israel was conquered and its people were soon driven out of their own land?out of their homes and cities?and carried captives to Assyria, near the southern shores of the Caspian Sea!" So it was in 721 B.C. that the Lost Tribes got "lost."
The Year Nothing Happened
Had the tribes remained faithful to God, all would have been well, Armstrong explains. "But, if they refused and rebelled, they were to be punished seven times?a duration of 2,520 years?in slavery, servitude, and want." They did rebel, and Armstrong theorizes that their punishment extended from 721 B.C. to A.D. 1800.
And what remarkable thing happened in 1800? Well, if we don’t count the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency of the United States, not a whole lot. In fact, 1800 was a pretty dull year for history. But Armstrong disagrees, saying that from that date, Britain and America became world powers; the former (at that time) politically, and the latter economically (and later, also politically).
According to Armstrong’s scheme, the figure of "2,520 years of punishment" is arrived at by multiplying the "seven years of punishment" by 360?the number of days in the year as it was reckoned by the ancients?on the principle that each "day" of punishment really stood for a whole year of punishment. If you think this is convoluted reasoning, just wait until you read the remainder of the argument in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. It’s enough to note here that Armstrong determines from Scripture that the Lost Tribes ended up on islands in the sea, and these islands are northwest of Palestine.
We’re told, for example, that the forty-ninth chapter of Isaiah begins with, "Listen, O isles, unto me." Do you see how this suggests the British Isles? Armstrong says, "Take a map of Europe. Lay a line due northwest of Jerusalem across the continent of Europe, until you come to the sea, and then to the islands in the sea! This line takes you direct to the British Isles!"
The skeptic might note that the line first comes to the Aegean islands, which are also in the sea?the Mediterranean Sea?but this would mean the Greeks are the Lost Tribes, therefore, the theory would not play into the desires of some British or Americans to identify themselves with the lost tribes.
Linguistic Legerdemain
You want more proof? Armstrong has it. "The House of Israel," he explains, "is the ‘covenant people.’ The Hebrew word for ‘covenant’ is brit [b’rith]. And the word for ‘covenant man,’ or ‘covenant people,’ would therefore sound, in English word order, Brit-ish (the word ish means ‘man’ in Hebrew, and it is also an English suffix on nouns and adjectives). And so, is it mere coincidence that the true covenant people today are called the ‘British’? And they reside in the ‘British Isles’!"
This reasoning may impress some, but no linguist would take this seriously. The word "British" is not derived from Hebrew but from the Celtic word Brettas. It’s significant that the Celtic Brettas referred to the Britons, who were inhabitants of England before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons that Armstrong claims were Israelites. One possible reason for Armstrong’s linguistic confusions may be that in Webster’s Diction-ary (for example, in the 3,200-page unabridged edition published in 1932?an edition Armstrong may have had access to) the entry for b’rith (Hebrew: covenant) appears sandwiched between the entries for "Britannic" and "Briticism." Perhaps he simply didn’t read carefully enough and assumed, wrongly, that b’rith must somehow be etymologically connected with the other the words before and after pertaining to things British. Neither does the common English suffix -ish derive from the Hebrew word for man. Instead, it derives from the Greek diminutive suffix -iskos
It was bad enough to suggest that the word "British" is Hebrew, but he also made another claim: If you take the name "Isaac," you see it’s easy for someone to drop the "I" when speaking quickly and to end up with "Saac" as the name of the patriarch. He had descendants, of course, and these may be called "Saac’s sons," from which we get the word "Saxons."
"Is it only coincidence," asks Armstrong, "that ‘Saxons’ sounds the same as ‘Saac’s sons’?sons of Isaac?" This doesn’t even qualify as a coincidence, since Armstrong had to make up the nickname of "Saac" in order for the "coincidence" to exist. In reality, the term "Saxon" is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word "seax," which means knife or dagger, not the Hebrew word "Isaac" (Yitskhaq), which means "laughter" (cf. Gen. 17:15?19, 18:9?15).
Another Remarkable Coincidence?
Armstrong found other coincidences. When the Lost Tribes were scattered, he says, they "brought with them certain remarkable things, including a harp and a wonderful stone called lia-fail, or stone of destiny. A peculiar coincidence is that Hebrew reads from right to left, while English reads from left to right. Read this name either way?and it still is lia-fail. Another strange coincidence?or is it just coincidence??is that many kings in the history of Ireland, Scotland, and England have been coronated sitting over a remarkable stone?including the present queen [sic]. The stone rests today in Westminster Abbey in London, and the coronation chair is built over and around it. A sign once beside it labeled it ‘Jacob’s pillar-stone.’"
Here Armstrong’s argument becomes even weaker. After all, one could note that Hebrew and English are not the only languages which, when contrasted, are read in different directions. For example, Arabic is read right to left, while Gaelic is read left to right. What does that prove? Nothing! Just as Armstrong’s muddled reasoning proves nothing at all about a connection between Hebrew and English. If it did, one could just as easily "prove" that the Lost Tribes were also responsible for bringing the Blarney Stone with them. And that’s just plain blarney.
Armstrongism’s Appeal
What makes Armstrong’s notion so attractive to some folks? First, it appeals to their nationalistic vanity: "I’m of English descent, and now I see that I’m right in the thick of things, biblically speaking. Having English blood in my veins makes me special. It puts me above the rest of the crowd." It also perpetuates ethnic prejudice: "Thank God I’m not Italian! I never liked Italians anyway, and now I see they aren’t descended from the Lost Tribes and so are only secondary players in the divine drama?something I always suspected."
At first glance, Armstrong’s argument seems to be based on a sophisticated understanding of Scripture: "Armstrong provides lots of citations, and I can’t find fault with his argument. It’s so convoluted and technical it must be right." But, still, it’s wrong, no matter how satisfying it seems to some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)