Re: Consciousness is information?

From: Jason Resch <>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:00:57 -0500

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Kelly <> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2:01 pm, Jason Resch <> wrote:
>> I am not sure that the measure problem can be so easily
>> abandoned/ignored.  Assuming every Observer Moment had has an equal
>> measure, then the random/white-noise filled OMs should vastly
>> outnumber the ordered and sensible OMs.
> The ordered and sensible OM's may be vastly outnumbered, but they are
> there.  And thus if you assume that everything happens, they will
> happen, and that explains your current experience of an ordered and
> sensible reality.  I don't see the problem.
> Again, I'm lead to this conclusion by the line of reasoning mentioned
> in my previous posts.  I didn't start with this assumption and then
> try to come up with supporting evidence.
> It is a strange conclusion, but it seems to me that any theory that
> explains conscious experience is going to have to be strange.  I think
> this one is only slightly odder than Bruno's.  And it's not really
> much odder than MWI, or the implications of an infinite universe
> (e.g., infinite Kellys), or of infinite time (e.g., poincare
> recurrence, boltzmann brains).  Or strange compared to thinking about
> where a material universe could have come from, what proceeded it,
> what caused it, what underlies it, etc.  That we exist at all is
> pretty strange I think.
>> Though I ever only have one
>> OM to go by, the fact I was able to maintain a
>> non-random/non-white-noise filled OMs long enough to compose this post
>> should serve as some level of evidence that all OMs are not weighted
>> equally.
> If all possible OMs are real, then you will have successfully
> completed all possible posts.  So, where's the problem?  You are one
> of the Jason's who successfully completed a post.  Where does your
> experience depart from what the theory predicts?
> You can only experience one path through life.  One reality per
> customer.  The reality that you are experiencing HAD to be experienced
> by someone, this is mandatory in my theory.  Using the fact that you
> ARE in fact experiencing it to try to disprove my theory I think is
> not a valid option.
> My theory does make one definite prediction, and so is (first person)
> falsifiable.  It predicts that there is always a next moment.  Always
> another conscious experience.
> So, if you die and that's it, just oblivion...then I was wrong.  Oops.
> So, we just have to wait...we will have our answer soon enough!

I understand that all possible experiences by definition are
experienced, and that rare experiences, however rare they may be, will
still be experienced. In fact I used that same argument with Russell
Standish when he said that ants aren't conscious because if they were
then we should expect to be experiencing life as ants and not humans.

However, in your theory you explain that there are always "next
moments" to be experienced, if you were to wager on your next
experience would you guess that it will be random or ordered? If you
say ordered, is that not a contradiction when the random experiences
so greatly outnumber the ordered?

If your theory is true, then certainly there are observers who
experience every moment as sensible, yet I would liken those to a
branch of the multiverse where every time an experimenter measures the
quantum state of any particle, it comes out the same, in that branch
perhaps they never develop the field of quantum mechanics, but how
long into the future would you expect that illusion to hold? Perhaps
in your theory "next" and "previous" OMs aren't really connected, only
the illusion of such a connection?

Would you say you belong to the ASSA or RSSA camp?

Or perhaps something different entirely?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Apr 26 2009 - 20:00:57 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST