Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2011, at 18:39, benjayk wrote:
>> I have a few more ideas to add, considering how this singularity  
>> might work
>> in practice.
>> I think that actually consciousness does not start in a linear  
>> fashion in
>> our coherent material world, but creates an infinity of semi-coherent
>> beginngs all the time (at all levels of consciousness), which might be
>> termed "virtual experiences", that exist right now. These are  
>> experiences
>> are more akin to exploring the possibility space than having a  
>> consistent
>> world (though they have to have a relative consistency, no one wants  
>> to
>> experience random noise). This would explain the encounters with  
>> intelligent
>> entities encountered on drug trips (sometimes dreams and  
>> meditation), that
>> seem very conscious. It seems hard to explain where they could come  
>> from in
>> coventional terms (future, spririt world, parallel universes,  
>> etc...?).
> Why not mind subroutine? Living in Platonia, and manifesting through  
> brain's module?
> This is already the case if mechanism is correct.
Yes, that could well be the case. Calling it subroutine is, in my view, just
a mechanistic metaphor. Actually mechanism as such seems to me to be just a
metaphor, even though it may be trivially true if every computation [can]
belong to every experience, which appears to be true to me (since
experiences are inseperably connected as one movement of consciousness).
What you call Plantonia, I would simply call the virtual realm, or the dream
realm (avoiding mathematical connotations).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> My
>> theory is that they are virtual beings, that really experience, but  
>> in them
>> consciousness has not yet decided by which "real" entitiy (like a  
>> human) it
>> is experienced, in which way the real subjective future will be  
>> experienced
>> (there already might exist a virtual future, though), when it is  
>> experienced
>> in reality and how exactly the experience is reflected to outside  
>> observers.
> The thema of this list is that virtual or possible = real. Real =  
> virtual seen from inside.
Right. Real is relative. Virtual beings are real, but we are "more" real, in
the sense of more stable and coherent (from the view of someone that
awakened from a virtual being, not necessarily from the point of view of
being in the virtual world - there it might appear that the opposite is the
There are probably also infinite layers of virtuality (advanced dreamers of
the far [potential] future may have heavily nested dreams - dreaming to have
dreamt to have dreamt ... to have awoken to have awoken and then awaking).
Ultimately reality in the metaphysical sense encompasses both "virtual" and

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You are reintroducing a suspect reality selection principle, similar  
> to the "wave collapse".
The wave collapse is undoubtably real as a subjective phenomenon, I am not
saying virtuality is objective.
It is just a way to order experience. A virtual experience is one from which
you awake into a more coherent one (without having to die). Virtual
experience just start out of nowhere, but they also can be (relatively)
started from normal reality.

View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

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

Reply via email to