One could easily argue that No Man’s Sky was both the most hyped and most disappointing game of 2016, if not ever.
A nearly infinite universe was revealed to be nothing more than a series of expansive but lifeless copy and paste jobs of pre-made assets.
What many found to be the game’s largest let down was what players found at the center of the universe.
Originally rumored to hold a secret to life, understanding, or just a bunch of in-game currency, what players found was essentially a reset button.
But what if the ending to No Man’s Sky showed us what happens when we die?
According to Biocentrism, a theory created by scientist Robert Lanza, Life and Biology create the universe and not the other way around.
The theory argues that our consciousness creates the world around us, meaning space and time aren’t actually things, but are tools of our “animal understanding”.
Along with this is the belief in multiple worlds, where our choices have split one universe into different outcomes.
Read More: Can This Video Game Change Your Ideology?
Basically, your choice to read this article occurred in one universe while an alternate universe exists where you chose to scroll past.
The final part of Biocentrism suggests that our souls are essentially immortal.
Your soul can exist outside and beyond your physical body much like a hermit crab can exist outside of its current shell.
The controversial orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) theory connects to Biocentrism and supports many of the near-death and out of body experiences humans have reported having throughout history.
Some scientists argue that there are simpler explanations for these visions and experiences.
According to inquisitr.com, “Skeptics have long attributed near death experiences to physical phenomena such as the brain being deprive of oxygen, not the human soul or any interaction with God or the afterlife.”
But former skeptics like Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon who was stuck in a coma for 7 days says his near-death experience revealed a consciousness after death.
In an article for Newsweek, Alexander said his profound experience during the coma gave him “a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death.”
“It exists, and what I saw and learned there has placed me quite literally in a new world: a world where we are much more than our brains and bodies, and where death is not the end of consciousness but rather a chapter in a vast, and incalculably positive, journey.”
The “Orch OR” theory could prove scientific evidence of our consciousness being “mere computations conducted within the neural networks in the human brain” while concurrently proving the long held belief of a separate mind, body and spirit in many religions.
So what does this mean for the ending of the game everyone loves to hate?
If your consciousness can’t die, but migrate as the Biocentrism suggests, the transfer and reset of your game once you reach the center of the universe in No Man’s Sky might be a realistic explanation of what happens when we die.
That blinding light and relocation to another universe with a clean slatemay truly be a glimpse into life after death.
That, or it could have just been a cheap way to insert replayability into the game.
Maybe in another universe, I also happened to put the $60 I spent on No Man’s Sky toward something I’d get more enjoyment from.
If you’re interested in learning more about the theory of Biocentrism, you can check out the book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman on Amazon. You’ll also find No Man’s sky regularly discounted if you ever feel like seeing what all the fuss is about.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Photo Credits: Blake Patterson/ Flickr
What Do You Think?
-
Harvard Law Might Get Rid Of Its Slavery Inspired Official Seal
Harvard Law School has educated some of the important and impactful progressive figures in our nation’s history.
Barack Obama, the first black President learned the law there, so did the first African-American female Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
But despite its esteemed reputation, Harvard Law has had a dark secret hiding in plain sight since the 1930s.
The law school’s official seal was recently discovered to have been inspired by the seal of a notorious and brutal slave owner- Isaac Royall.
The Royall family seal features three sheaves of wheat, which also appears in the Harvard seal. Photo Credit: Harvard Press
The seal depicts three “sheaves” of wheat, which according to the Boston Globe is a direct derivative of the Royall family crest.
After a racial incident rocked the campus last fall, students started to organize to remove the seal.
On Friday, a commission of students, faculty and alumni recommended to change the official seal.
Here’s what the official seal looks like:
“The Harvard Corporation just received the recommendation from the Harvard Law School faculty committee late this week. It will review the recommendation and make a determination in due course,” Jeff Neal, a Harvard University spokesman told the Boston Globe in an e-mail.
RISE NEWS will continue to follow this developing story.
Cover Photo Credit: Harvard: Royall Must Fall/ Facebook
Do you believe that institutions of higher learning should remove official seals or change names of buildings that were inspired by slave owners? Tell us in the comments below:
What Do You Think?
-
So What The Hell Is Going On In Colombia?
The conflict in Colombia between the Colombian government and the FARC guerrilla movement has been present in the lives of millions for over 52 years.
This armed conflict has not only severely affected the country in terms of violence but has also brought detrimental social and economic consequences.
The current Colombian administration took important steps into achieving a peace settlement, but after a plebiscite the Colombian people decided they would not agree on the terms of the agreement the government had negotiated.
This is what you need to know about Colombia and the current situation in regards to the peace process with the FARC:
FARC- Who are they?
The seeds of the FARC was started in 1953 when Colombia had a dictator as a leader called Gustavo Rojas Pinilla. (The group was officially founded 11 years later in 1964.)
Pinilla was against the liberal guerrillas (a group that favored the federalist system) and he was constantly attacking these groups.
Read More: Is This South Africa’s Tiananmen Square Moment?
As a consequence, self-defense groups formed and they “sought to protect themselves from the action of government militaries” (Leach 2011). These groups believed in a greater justice for the field.
While the FARC was at first ideologically motivated, it became more than that- involved in drug running and kidnappings to name a few.
A cache of FARC weapons collected by the government in 2013. Photo Credit: Policía Nacional de los colombianos/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
The FARC-EP is still fighting 52 years later and as the years have gone by they have started to utilize terrorist tactics and commit gross violations of human rights, they also profit from the illicit drug trade.
Peace Negotiations and the October Plebiscite
In 2012, President Juan Manuel Santos announced that he was going to initiate peace talks with the FARC; his goals were to end the conflict.
President Santos’ strategy for implementing a peace process with the FARC had major differences compared to the ones made by former Presidents Pastrana and Uribe.
Scholars such as Meuci noted that there were three major differences of the peace negotiations that took place in La Habana, Cuba:
1) The Colombian Government was negotiating in a strong position because the FARC was extremely weak, 2) Venezuela and other neighboring countries were taken into account, 3) the peace process had a pre-negotiation stage in 2011.
The peace talks were limited to five negotiation points- these being agrarian reform, the political participation of former FARC members, the procedures and statues that would bring an end to the armed conflict, The FARC involvement in the international drug trade, and the sources of reparation for victims. (Alvira 2013)
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. Photo Credit: Ministerio TIC Colombia/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
After four years of negotiations, Santos promised the Colombian people he would release the final agreement and subject it to a popular vote.
On October 2, 2016 a non-binding plebiscite was held.
The question to answer in the vote was “Do you support the final agreement to end the conflict and the construction of a stable long-lasting peace?”
Colombians were to vote Yes or No.
Colombians rejected the peace accord and the “No” won by 50.2 percent against the “Yes” 49.8 percent.
What’s Next?
After the announcement of the results, Santos acknowledged the results as the will of the people and called for national unity.
He talked about his commitment with achieving peace and desire to reach a consensus with Colombians that did not agree with him.
At the same time, one of the FARC leaders talked about his compromise to reach peace and to keep the cease-fire agreement in place.
The leaders of the “No” camp reassured that people were rejecting the concessions that the government made with the FARC but not rejecting peace.
They argued the government was more or less rewarding terrorist and that this emphasized the need for renegotiation and for a better deal with the FARC.
Photo Credit: SV-AS10 ImageData
The current situation is an opportunity for true consensus through renegotiation.
Santos’ new plans are to include the thoughts from leaders of the “No” camp such as Alvaro Uribe Velez, Marta Lucia Ramirez, and Andrés Pastrana Arango.
Read More: What The Revolution Wrought: The Umbrella Movement Two Years On
This is essential to help mitigate the division and polarization in the country.
The next step is to truly form points of discussion and agreements that both sides (within the government) agree and then renegotiate with the FARC.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Photo Credit: bixentro/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Sources cited in piece:
Leech, Garry. The FARC: The longest insurgency. London and New York: Fernwood Publishing, Zed Book ltd, 2011.
Meucci, M. (2013). Proceso de paz en Colombia. Posibles implicaciones para Venezuela. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 3-19. Translated by Juliana Carvajal
Alvira, G. (2013). Toward a New Amnesty: The Colombian Peace Process and the Inter- American Court of Human Rights. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 22, 119-144.
What Do You Think?
-
Hey Bros, Here’s 6 Tips To Avoid Mansplaining
The term “mansplain” was one of many words added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. Mansplain is defined as an informal verb meaning “(Of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.”
While a condescending explanation isn’t something that is limited to men, it is something that many women have experienced over and over. Being silenced is something that many have experienced in one way or another, and mansplaining is one of the ways that that happens.
A good example of mansplaining is something you might have already seen from recent news – Matt Damon explaining how diversity in the film industry works to Effie Brown, producer of Dear White People during a discussion on Project Greenlight, which can be viewed in the TMZ video below.
He later released an apology, saying that, “My comments were part of a much broader conversation about diversity in Hollywood and the fundamental nature of Project Greenlight which did not make the show. I am sorry that they offended some people, but, at the very least, I am happy that they started a conversation about diversity in Hollywood.”
Damon’s apology has its own issues, starting with the fact that the discussion about diversity in Hollywood has been going on for years, but it certainly did add to the discussion about diversity in a way.
Now, I know that you would never want to be accused of mansplaining, so here are some ways to avoid it in all of your conversations.
Tips:
1) Before jumping in with your thoughts, ask yourself these questions:
A) Did your conversation partner ask for your opinion about the topic?
B) Are you an expert on the topic?
C) Does your sentence start with “I don’t think you understand…” or “No, you’re misunderstanding….”?2) How much does your conversation partner know about the topic? If you’re not sure, ask!
3) Don’t be afraid to say you don’t know something. You aren’t always going to know everything about every topic. If you don’t know about it, open your ears and give it a solid listen – You’ll probably learn something!
4) Is your conversation partner plastering a fake smile on their face or responding with nods or “mmhmms”? If so, they probably aren’t listening to you anymore. Watch your social cues.
5) Limit your assertions to your own experiences or research that you have fully read and understand. If you don’t fully understand it, say so.
6) Last but definitely not least, respect your conversation partner’s experiences and viewpoint. It may be different from yours, perhaps even wrong by your beliefs, but you still need to respect them.
Cover Photo Credit: ☻☺/Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?