Hello,
One might take the position that consciousness just is..., and is focused at a
particular point we might call
an identity. If we assume time is an illusion, the idea of being much older
than the apparent vehicle consciousness,
would hold.
As for the statement: "I exist because somewhere I am computed." under the
assumption of infinite consciousness,
it is its own computation. The machinery to compute and the thing to compute
are the same thing.
It exists everywhere existence is. In this model the physical body would be a
focal point.
In this model, an identical computation could not yield a separate
consciousness.
One might consider, if it is the method of observation which determines what is
observed.
If one assumes a limited perspective as the initial conditions of observation,
then one observes
only what he expects. Those things defying explanation, tend to be ignored less
the whole
framework collapse.
If one considers the kind of thinking and theory generation possible with the
thinking prevalent
100 years ago as compared with today, one can see that the initial assumptions
seem to be the
limiting factor in what can be explained. For example, 100 years ago, it was
scarcely believable
that powered flight was possible, much less a mission to the moon. This is not
just a matter of data
in a book to derive one's possible creative space. I maintain it has more to do
with consciousness
expansion. That is, one cannot help but have expanded consciousness as the
result of experiencing,
thinking, and creating. A very simplistic example involves learning to drive a
car with a manual transmission.
At first one labors to consider the coordination of clutch, brake, throttle,
and gear shift. Ten years with
such experience this same person can drop into any vehicle with a manual
transmission and drive it, adapting
quickly to the given parameters of the given vehicle. From one perspective this
is just a hardwired skill set.
But upon close inspection, one can describe just about all aspects of the state
space of operating a manual
transmission vehicle, even what would happen if things are done incorrectly.
This demonstrates a tie between
a skill and consciousness. One can further learn to operate any machinery that
involves torque control and
perhaps a clutch very quickly based on the experience of operating a manual
transmission vehicle. This
implies extrapolation of fundamental dynamic elements into a new model, all
done very quickly.
If a mechanic drives a car and in the process of operating it feels certain
things, he can quickly determine
what if anything is causing the disturbance. This implies not only the
consciousness development of a
casual operator, but also that of a mechanic, who can model the mechanical
workings in his head on the fly.
This is not a simple model either, feel, vibration, sound, all tie into a model
which he can then verbally describe
at length.
The point of these examples is to demonstrate that consciousness grows with
experience and learning. This
example also demonstrates crudely that the expanded consciousness can grow
faster with each new addition
to it.
Now again consider the observer observing his own consciousness. He makes some
simple observations in
terms of language and established bodies of knowledge. What he learns by
observation is flavored by what
he has to compare it to. As he learns what's possible to learn by observation
of his consciousness, it grows
with each observation. Forcing the observer to hit a target that moves faster
the more it is observed.
One might then consider another possibility. If my theory is correct about
consciousness, then this moving
target would continue to move toward infinite awareness. That is, aware of all
things in the universe, multiverse, or
what have you.
(It also could move within the space such that it spirals in circles and leads
no where.)
This could be tested. Consider that thoughts can also serve to expand
consciousness. One creates a thought,
this thought facilitates consciousness expansion by creating a kind of tool for
seeing consciousness. In general
we do this anyway. Anytime one creates an explanation of a concept that more
readily facilitates understanding
by other observers, he's created a kind of dynamic tool for seeing. To
continue, the experimenter might
consider abstract thoughts that target the most direct route to a goal. This
goal being rapid expansion of consciousness.
The thoughts would be created and chained successively.
(observation is done through awareness, not theory fitting or direct probing.
Doing so causes consciousness to
collapse on itself)
To illustrate: One clears his mind, imagines a thought/awareness that
facilitates expansion, then releases the
thought and holds his mind blank to disallow preconceived thinking to interfere
with what is created. One then
continues to repeat the process as gently and as quietly as possible.
With practice this process gets easier and easier. Eventually one notices how
thoughts interact. One even experiences
pure awareness irrespective of the five senses. One develops senses in terms of
pure abstract creations. One in
effect creates senses with thoughts. From observations made with the new
senses, one creates new ones.
This process can be optimized into a continuous flow. One might dare to
consider that if consciousness is already infinite,
but simply unrealized, that he can simple imagine an arrival point without
considering the method for arriving there. Meditating
upon this hypothetical point using the thought chaining method outlined, one
does arrive somewhere. If my theory is correct,
the intelligence already there, will answer the request of the observer focal
point. The observer merges with the entire process
required to deliver the conscious focal point to the desired arrival point.
I offer this above description and exercise as a method to collect more data.
I feel if one imposes to many expectations in
terms of theories and logic that they effectively box themselves in by what
they expect.
Robert W.
Saibal Mitra wrote:
> Jacques Mallah wrote:
>
> > >From: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
> > >Jacques Mallah wrote:
> > > `` I have repeated pointed out the obvious consequence that if that
> were
> > >true, then a typical observer would find himself to be much older than
> the
> > >apparent lifetime of his species would allow; the fact that you do not
> find
> > >yourself so old gives their hypothesis a probability of about 0 that it
> is
> > >the truth. However, they hold fast to their incomprehensible beliefs.´´
> > >
> > >According to FIN, however, the probability of being alive at all is
> almost
> > >zero, which contradicts our experience of being alive.
> >
> > Whatchya mean? I wouldn't mind acquiring a new argument against FIN
> to
> > add to the ones I give, but your statement doesn't appear to make any
> sense.
>
> You wrote earlier that consciousness can't be transferred to a copy. But
> consciousness isn't transferred, the copies had the same consciousness
> already because they were identical.
>
> I would say: I exist because somewhere I am computed. You appear to say that
> (forgive me if I am wrong) I must identify myself with one computation. Even
> an identical computation performed somewhere else will have a different
> identity.
>
> My objection is that the brain is constantly changing due to various
> processes. The typical timescales of these processes is about a millisecond.
> FIN thus predicts that I shouldn't find myself alive after a few
> milliseconds.
>
> Saibal
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free .domain.name.hidden address at
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Aug 30 2001 - 11:45:19 PDT