Science...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps it might help to avoid thinking of things in terms of internal and external. Perhaps there is no external reality. Perhaps we live in a consciousness-generated virtual reality.

To us, that reality would seem exactly like what we now perceive to be external, separate and objective because our view is that of a part of the conscious whole: a tiny, individualised point of consciousness with limited perspective. The whole can experience what we experience but, in our restricted form, we can't experience the whole.

But it would be external, separate, and objective. Those are words we use to describe things that are not a direct part of our conscious processes. I doubt there is an experiment we could perform to separate "consciousness-based external reality" from "physical external reality."

So Paul, Malf, etc. would be justified in making the observations they do because they (and we) do so from a restricted perspective. It all seems "out there" and the physicalist model seems to explain it all pretty well. I guess it takes a philosophical leap to arrive at the conclusion that we are all generated forms within a greater consciousness. Is there evidence to support making that leap? Can science take us there? Isn't that what this forum is discussing every day?

Most excellent questions.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

THere is no bifurcation without observation.

And yet that scenario bifurcates. Note what I edited in afterward:

So if the secretary hears the alarm, then the measurement was "down" and the system collapses when she hears it. But if the secretary didn't hear the alarm, then the measurement was "up" and the system collapses later, when someone looks at the printer. Except this bifurcation of possibilities is based on the result of the measurement, which isn't supposed to collapse the system. It's as if the system needs to collapse by the time the printer starts, in order to determine when the system will collapse later.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah, I don't think a dictionary fixes anything, at best there's an infinite regress. I'll make a separate thread for this at some point as it seems there are several conversations here - sadly looking back it seems I'm responsible for that. Whoops!

I agree there is an infinite regress, but it only appears to be a problem during philosophical conversations.

~~ Paul

 

[Neil]

And yet that scenario bifurcates. Note what I edited in afterward:

So if the secretary hears the alarm, then the measurement was "down" and the system collapses when she hears it. But if the secretary didn't hear the alarm, then the measurement was "up" and the system collapses later, when someone looks at the printer. Except this bifurcation of possibilities is based on the result of the measurement, which isn't supposed to collapse the system. It's as if the system needs to collapse by the time the printer starts, in order to determine when the system will collapse later.

~~ Paul

the measurement cannot bifurcate anything. It exists in a mixture state until observed in some way. Whatever tricks you want to try aren't going to get around this. The math doesn't lie.

 

[Kamarling]

Well, at least how I see it, it's the idea that there are users - conscious entities in a higher frame - accessing information that exists in some kind of medium in the lower frame. All the possible timelines you can take in this life already exist, but only in a potential sense in the same way the code for a game already contains all your potential actions.

I briefly talked to Arvan about this over email, but maybe it's worth seeing if he's willing to be a guest on Skeptiko?

Well I've just scanned through his essay and it seems to me to be essentially dualistic, if not wholly physicalist. From the point of view of the inhabitant of the VR, it would be dualistic: they would notice qualia and such like. From an external point of view, the whole simulation is running in a purely physical system. At least, that is what I get from this:

Observers trapped in a P2P simulation would be convinced — just as many of us are — that there is something about their subjective point-of-view that cannot be captured in the physics of their world. And they would be right. The hardware upon which the simulation is running — the processing apparatus (viz. DVD laser apparatus/processor) — would comprise their subjective point-of-view, and be inaccessible to them within the simulation. More generally, the P2P model holds that a reality like ours is comprised by two fundamentally different types of things: (a) “hardware” (i.e., consciousness/measurement apparatus), and (b) “software” (i.e., physical information) interacting.

EDIT: Interesting that he lists consciousness as "hardware".

 

[Arouet]

the measurement cannot bifurcate anything. It exists in a mixture state until observed in some way. Whatever tricks you want to try aren't going to get around this. The math doesn't lie.

Except that if I understand it correct, the taking of the measurement is one of those ways.

 

[Neil]

Except that if I understand it correct, the taking of the measurement is one of those ways.

How could it? There is nothing in the math that would do that.

 

[Arouet]

How could it? There is nothing in the math that would do that.

My copy of Von Neumann's book is on my computer at home. I'll try and dig up the quotation I'm thinking of later. It's the bit where he says observation can be placed anywhere in the formula, it includes, IIRC, the measurement by the measuring device.

 

[malf]

It could be that qualia and its symbolic representations arise together as an inseparable binary opposition... entangled so to speak. The symbol for a color can take the form of words, computer bits, or... the wavelength of light... all of which are different methods of patterning space and energy. Just to write this sentence, the concept of "red" goes through many symbolic transformations of patterned space and energy.

If the universe is created in a self-reflexive manner by symbol/meaning oscillation (internal/external oscillation or conscious/subconscious or knowing/forgetting oscillation) then perhaps that's why these arguments always end up reminding me of a dog chasing its tail.

Yep. Two big 'ifs" at the start of each paragraph . ;)

I don't find the mental gymnastics you are going through particularly satisfying (or helpful).

How, under that system, would some (otherwise healthy incarnate souls experience life without colour. Does that not imply that colour is anything but "primary"?

 

[Hurmanetar]

I agree there is an infinite regress, but it only appears to be a problem during philosophical conversations.

~~ Paul

Because philosophical conversations are an exercise in deconstruction which is a reflexive process. If the universe was built by self-reflection, maybe that is why we can break it back down through self-reflection.

 

[Neil]

My copy of Von Neumann's book is on my computer at home. I'll try and dig up the quotation I'm thinking of later. It's the bit where he says observation can be placed anywhere in the formula, it includes, IIRC, the measurement by the measuring device.

The outcome of that measuring device would be described as a probability.

 

[Hurmanetar]

Yep. Two big 'ifs" at the start of each paragraph . ;)

I don't find the mental gymnastics you are going through particularly satisfying (or helpful).

How, under that system, would some (otherwise healthy incarnate souls experience life without colour. Does that not imply that colour is anything but "primary"?

I'm not sure what you mean...

There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on in this thread (which is inevitable whenever we try and pin down ultimate meanings) and I'm basically saying... perhaps that's because the whole reality is in essence a bit of mental gymnastics.

 

[malf]

I'm not sure what you mean...

There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on in this thread (which is inevitable whenever we try and pin down ultimate meanings) and I'm basically saying... perhaps that's because the whole reality is in essence a bit of mental gymnastics.

Well, word salad phrases like "an inseparable binary opposition" neiher seem to carry any explanatory power, nor be based on any evidence.

I can find no pragmatism in this position or any value at all, outside the fun of thinking up unfalsifiable ontologies (which is fair enough).

If you could answer my question re colour vision anomalies it may help me understand a bit better?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Well I've just scanned through his essay and it seems to me to be essentially dualistic, if not wholly physicalist. From the point of view of the inhabitant of the VR, it would be dualistic: they would notice qualia and such like. From an external point of view, the whole simulation is running in a purely physical system. At least, that is what I get from this:

EDIT: Interesting that he lists consciousness as "hardware".

It's functionally dualistic, like I said he deserves a whole interview IMO. He's been asked about the medium of the higher/lower frames and he's said as of now he doesn't think it can be known.

Ah, more in another thread for sure this one's crowded enough. :-)

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I agree there is an infinite regress, but it only appears to be a problem during philosophical conversations.

~~ Paul

Last question I promise before creating a new thread -> Where do you see the regress?

 

[Saiko]

sadly looking back it seems I'm responsible for that. Whoops!

Yeah! You and your darn Trickster machinations. ;)

 

[Iyace]

The study of cone function in the retina.

You're turn. Try not to answer every question with another question. I won't answer anymore until you've "had a go".

I mean, that's not really an explanation. I'm not the one claiming something, I'm saying color MAY not be a mental construct. I don't need to provide evidence that it's not. Paul ( and I'm assuming you ) are claiming that it IS, so it's reasonable to ask for a detailed explanation about why you think that.

" study of cone functions in the retina " is not a detailed explanation.

 

[malf]

I mean, that's not really an explanation. I'm not the one claiming something, I'm saying color MAY not be a mental construct. I don't need to provide evidence that it's not. Paul ( and I'm assuming you ) are claiming that it IS, so it's reasonable to ask for a detailed explanation about why you think that.

" study of cone functions in the retina " is not a detailed explanation.

Do you consider qualia ("the redness of red") to be primary?

 

[malf]

" study of cone functions in the retina " is not a detailed explanation.

An overview. Let me know when you need more detail

http://www.colour-blindness.com/general/how-it-works-science/

 

[Hurmanetar]

Well, word salad phrases like "an inseparable binary opposition" neiher seem to carry any explanatory power, nor be based on any evidence.

Some "things" are defined by their opposites. Some things come in pairs and to consider one existing without the other is nonsense.

The prevailing model is that matter is prime and only recently has any quaila or meaning been derived from it by machines that have evolved to decode energy and matter into meaning and qualia. That leads to the hard problem of consciousness and chasing our tails. If we instead view mind and matter as poles of one binary opposition maybe it makes more sense: recognize that the tail you've been chasing is part of you.

You can take the perspective that the objective material world contains the real meaning and that the qualia generated by your brain is a symbolic representation of it. And you can just as easily flip this and take the perspective that your qualia is the real meaning and the material out there is a symbolic representation of your qualia.

Materialists say matter is prime because it was here first. Idealists say mind is prime because meaning and qualia are products of mind, so if we can extract meaning or qualia from matter then mind must have encoded that meaning or qualia into the symbolic form of matter.

I'm saying mind and matter, internal and external, symbol and meaning like particle and anti-particle, all originate together... so when we start chasing down reality... It looks like this:

Or more traditionally represented by the Ouroboros:

Or the Yin Yang...

I can find no pragmatism in this position or any value at all, outside the fun of thinking up unfalsifiable ontologies (which is fair enough).

The purely pragmatic value is that you can realize that you're chasing your own tail and stop if you want to. If you're a materialist, you can stop having the perception that matter is prime or more real than meaning or qualia. Also contemplating the self-reflexive nature of reality can dissolve boundaries leading to mystical experience and/or insanity and/or novelty and creativity... And maybe even lead to something "magical".

If you could answer my question re colour vision anomalies it may help me understand a bit better?

Some people are color blind. Some people are blind. Without a PDF reader I can't open PDFs but that doesn't mean there isn't encoded symbolic information in the file. I guess I'm not sure where your question was taking us?