On 16 Nov 2011, at 01:36, benjayk wrote:

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
are more akin to exploring the possibility space than having a
world (though they have to have a relative consistency, no one wants
experience random noise). This would explain the encounters with
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,

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.

Not if you assume mechanism. In that case it is not a 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).

By Platonia I don't mean anymore than the set of true proposition of arithmetic. With mechanism, we need only a tiny effective (computer generable) part of it, which correspond to the UD's work.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

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
(there already might exist a virtual future, though), when it is
in reality and how exactly the experience is reflected to outside

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

Well, there are two kind of dreams. Those who are sharable, and those who are private and personal. Physical realities belongs to the first kind.

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

"real" is an indexical. It is just virtual seen from inside. From "God"'s view, those have the same nature, although the sharable dreams are more persistent, and can relate to very deep (necessary long) computations.

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.

? (not clear for me, sorry).



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to