Re: 'Multiverse Theory' - Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix

From: Torbj?rn Larsson (070-3993938_at_comhem.se)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: 1 Aug 2004 21:15:03 -0700

> > This is copied from a (copyrighted) paper 'The description and
> > definition of consciousness' in the webjournal 'Science &
> > Consciousness Review' (without anyones consent, sorry guys, I guess
> > this is a 'copy for my own use'?!) where presumably the same Alex
> > Green more shortly describes his thoughts.
>
> It is quite common for authors to repeat themselves, wittingly or
> unwittingly. Thanks for pointing this out but SCR knew that some of
> these words had been web published previously by myself.

I am sorry if you feel critisized! I was merely stating that I saw the
copyright label but felt that the description in the paper was more
useful to argue about. Apparently you can accept that, thanks!

> > I'm quite sure this is too simplified and that several objections can
> > be made. For example, where do forgotten objects go?

With your explanation of your model as describing 'conscious
experience' instead of consciousness this is even more interresting.
What happens with objects within the perceptual field that we are not
yet aware of, that we forget, or when the switch awareness focus?

> > As an aside, some
> > philosophers models ("meditations") are mentioned as empirical
> > descriptions and accounts,
>
> Most of the philosophers mentioned are categorised as 'empiricist
> philosophers'. Empiricism was an important philosophical movement that
> held that we should observe and compare observations rather than adopt
> theories and apply them as dogma (cf: applying information systems
> theory to conscious experience).

Thank you for teaching me something new! The term 'empiricism is
vagualy familiar. However, that a philosopher is arguing that
observations should be used doesn't mean that hers/his models are
empirical.

In another post I have vagualy defined empirical method as testing a
model to observations that is outside the set that was used to
formulate the model; testing within is a first step but can onlys show
consistency.

There is no evidence to suggest that the models are empirical. At
worst they also confuse the model with observations, like if you would
argue that your models dimensions are observations of dimensions that
needs to be explained.
 
> > which seems like bogus since these things
> > are not rigorously defined yet.
>
> There are many, convergent definitions given at:
>
> http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conzbibl.htm

Well, they are many, but that is part of the problem. No one seems to
capture consciousness; it is like the problem of describing 'life'.

Actually there are more parallels between consciousness and life.
There are people that say that we cannot create new life either. The
first wholly syntetic virus was created last year(?). Of course that
is still not life since it doesn't have it's own metabolism; I often
think of virus as the more complex system host + virus instead of just
host. But it's a start, just like the first simulated perception
system Kjell, which of course isn't conscious (yet).
 
> >
> > On Alex own reference link above there is a reference to a Steve Lehar
> > that uses a more complicated abstract space to explain visual
> > processing alone. I'm not sure I agree with all of that either (too
> > much background philosophy and mathematics, nut warning!) but at least
> > this could be a working theory.
>
> Poor Steve Lehar! He is certainly not a nut. All the philosophical
> references were forced on him by the editors of the journals.
> Consciousness studies is a multidisciplinary field in which much of
> the early work was done by philosophers. Any historical survey needs
> to cover the philosophical background, indeed Lehar did such a good
> job amending his paper that it is now a good source for the history of
> the field.

I must sincerely apologize to Steve Lehar, you and any readers of
these groups! My meaning was to emphasize that I couldn't vouche for
the post as being a good model since the amount of pre- and
postmaterial suggested another of these Theories That Explains
Everything About The Subject Matter And A Lot More Too. Your
explanation makes a lot of sense about the prematerial (philosophy &
history) so I got that wrong too. Again, sorry :-( and I Will Most
Certainly Thread Lighter In The Future. ;-)

Lehars model seem to be exclusively about the perception field and
explain a lot of the perceptual quirks involved. It will be an
interresting read then I get around to it!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Multiverse Theory - Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix
    ... experience' instead of consciousness this is even more interresting. ... > Most of the philosophers mentioned are categorised as 'empiricist ... The term 'empiricism is ... >> On Alex own reference link above there is a reference to a Steve Lehar ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Multiverse Theory - Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix
    ... > theories of consciousness. ... Most of the philosophers mentioned are categorised as 'empiricist ... > On Alex own reference link above there is a reference to a Steve Lehar ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Multiverse Theory - Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix
    ... > theories of consciousness. ... Most of the philosophers mentioned are categorised as 'empiricist ... > On Alex own reference link above there is a reference to a Steve Lehar ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: R&Ms "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes
    ... > Well philosophers are wont to spread their manure all over the place, ... > was trying to make is if intelligence indeed begets consciousness, ... afraid it can prevent the development of even simple mechanisms. ... > wind up having to assume multiple mechanical principles of sentience. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: The Gadfly by E. L. Voynich
    ... empiricism than your assertion about the non-existence of a god. ... conceived of as a doctrine about how all ... Some philosophers reduce empircism to ... In practice, historically speaking, revelation is ...
    (rec.arts.books)