On Dec 12, 9:05 am, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 12/12/2011 7:55 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 6:05 pm, Russell Standish<li...@hpcoders.com.au>  wrote:
>
> >> The question is - where is the consciousness in all this? I think it
> >> must move with the levels - and given the UDA and COMP, I would say
> >> that consciousness appears at the Multiverse level, not the single
> >> universe level.
> > I don't see why invoking a Multiverse is preferable to a continuum of
> > public and private sense channels within one universe. If
> > consciousness appears at the Multiverse level, should we not be
> > conscious of the Multiverse? Instead, it is just the opposite. The one
> > characteristic which is shared most pervasively among sane subjects is
> > realism - a practical certainty of a single shared sense context which
> > is uncompromisingly and absolutely real.
>
>      This is a good point but let me flesh it out a bit. It seems to me
> that in a way the Multiverse is isomorphic to a "continuum of public and
> private sense channels within one universe ", the difference is just one
> of point of view. The Multiverse view is an abstraction taken as if one
> where somehow "outside" of the multiverse a literal impossibility for
> such would require that there exist a reality allowing observers outside
> of the multiverse and the latter is an abstraction taking into account a
> plurality of disjoint 1p.

Right, multiverse can only ever be a model from the hypothetical
omniscient voyeur's perspective (HOVP) since each universe can only
contain observers of the universe which they inhabit. I suppose the
main difference between a single universe that embraces multisense
realism channels (like an Indra's Net where each node experiences the
other nodes in a way that represents them in terms which are
potentially sensible to them) and a true multiverse model is that the
multiverse provides a separate timeline for every possibility.

Since we can't tell the difference between a universe which seems to
make sense to us only because of the continuity of the single
anthropic timeline which we happen to be part of, or whether our naive
perception of a single universal timeline is more accurate, I tend to
give the benefit of the doubt to sense and significance. Sense gives
us the ability to sniff out better interpretations and precipitate a
consensus rather than splinter into billions of unknowable
possibilities. It seems like a universe anchored in multiverse would
have only relativistic realism. It seems like our waking experience
should be more disjointed and dreamlike as every moment would be a
complex dice throw to retain any resemblance to anything that came
before. It seems like there would be a lot of complex unexplained
rules governing possibilities of universes so that more universes
would have to be invoked to describe how that governing is arrived at.

If by multiverse we just mean private tunnel realities which overlap,
reflect, and refract each other, as well as project public consensus
realities, then sure, I'm all for that.

>      That a collection of communicating entities will have a collective
> sense of a single context that is "real" follows immediately from the
> necessity of mutual non-contradiction over those communications. If
> there is no coherent content of one or more entities that would
> contradict the "realness" of our world, why should we not have the
> experience of a single world? We usually put this requirement onto the
> notion of universal laws, but that assessment requires the unnecessary
> explanatory burden of some prior measure on the possible worlds, a
> burden that need not exist in the first place!

Right, sharing a set of common senses produces the same effect that we
would attribute to externally imposed 'laws'.

>
>
>
> >> BTW - I had a similar problem with your MGA - it is not intrinsically
> >> absurd to me that a recording can be conscious. From the right point
> >> of view (presumably that of the consciousness itself - aka the "inside
> >> view"), it seems plausible that a recording could be conscious.
> > If recordings were conscious, wouldn't they evolve behind our backs?
> > Shouldn't Bugs Bunny continue to have new adventures inside the film
> > can that we can watch forever? It makes more sense to me that
> > recordings are not conscious, but rather they are artifacts arranged
> > so that consciousness may play them as an indirect or specular
> > sensorimotive experience. We have no reason to assume that
> > consciousness, or anything else, can be a disembodied arithmetic.
>
>      If recordings where conscious then why bother with the "real
> thing"?!?!?!?!

Exactly. I was just thinking yesterday - if we could take a drug which
would make give us the delusion that we had done something great, even
if everyone else on Earth shared that delusion, I think we all would
agree that it isn't the same thing as actually doing something great.
There has to be something that is actually more real about reality
than fantasy or else none of us would care very much about reality.

Craig

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to