Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

My primary objection to Master Rovelli's is the basis of his physics goes back 
to the traditional Block Universe, beloved, of Einstein and Michele Besso. 
Unfortunately, this view gives rise to hypothetical conundrums, specifically, 
such fictional elements as Time-Ram, as depicted with Dr. Who vying for control 
of the galaxy against his opposite, The Master (Jon Pertwee v Roger Delgado). 
Simply visualize two massive, transversable, wormholes  that collide just under 
the speed of light and whola! The Big Rip! Peeking from behind stiffened 
fingers and...Ok the world is still here! No rip because the cosmos is not a 
Block snapshot as Rovelli asserts, but appears to be something more akin to 
fluid dynamics, perhaps a holographic fluid of sorts, maybe? 

-Original Message-
From: smitra 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 2, 2021 4:48 pm
Subject: Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

On 02-04-2021 22:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .
 
 I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
 person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?
>>> 
>>> I don't know what you mean by "directly".
>> 
>> I mean direct vs. indirect realism:
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
>> 
>> 
>>>  We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
>>> and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm 
>>> pretty sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?
>> 
>> Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
>> not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept 
>> it.
>> 
 
 Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
 the physical world?
>>> 
 
 Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?
>>> 
>>> I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.
>> 
>> The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
>> the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
>> reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
>> world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".
> 
> By that interpretation every theory is a theory about a virtual world,
> so the word "virtual" is empty.  The whole point of any theory or
> model is that it's about something else, F=ma doesn't express a theory
> about m.  Notice that neurons are a theoretical construct as well as
> flowers.
> 
> Brent

We can make theories about the real world and validate those in 
experiments, but the brain's neural circuitry has implemented a virtual 
reality that has evolved to match some important aspects of the natural 
world, allowing our ancestors to survive. Certain concepts that we 
experience like the experience of seeing the color red, being angry etc. 
then only have a meaning at the level of the algorithm the brain is 
running. While you can still reduce whatever is happening in the brain 
in terms of the fundamental physical processes, to completely capture 
the experience, you always need to construct the algorithm from the 
fundamental physical processes.

Saibal



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebabb0cd664ab8299880910481cf51c1%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42370295.226707.1617404896229%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[smitra]

On 02-04-2021 22:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:



On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .


I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


I don't know what you mean by "directly".


I mean direct vs. indirect realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism


 We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm 
pretty sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?


Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept 
it.




Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
the physical world?




Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?


I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.


The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".


By that interpretation every theory is a theory about a virtual world,
so the word "virtual" is empty.  The whole point of any theory or
model is that it's about something else, F=ma doesn't express a theory
about m.  Notice that neurons are a theoretical construct as well as
flowers.

Brent


We can make theories about the real world and validate those in 
experiments, but the brain's neural circuitry has implemented a virtual 
reality that has evolved to match some important aspects of the natural 
world, allowing our ancestors to survive. Certain concepts that we 
experience like the experience of seeing the color red, being angry etc. 
then only have a meaning at the level of the algorithm the brain is 
running. While you can still reduce whatever is happening in the brain 
in terms of the fundamental physical processes, to completely capture 
the experience, you always need to construct the algorithm from the 
fundamental physical processes.


Saibal



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebabb0cd664ab8299880910481cf51c1%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:



On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .


I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


I don't know what you mean by "directly". 


I mean direct vs. indirect realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism


 We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm 
pretty sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?


Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept it.




Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
the physical world?




Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?


I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.


The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".


By that interpretation every theory is a theory about a virtual world, 
so the word "virtual" is empty.  The whole point of any theory or model 
is that it's about something else, F=ma doesn't express a theory about 
m.  Notice that neurons are a theoretical construct as well as flowers.


Brent



Evgenii


Brent



Evgeny


Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I 
don't know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach 
out with stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a 
ball and hit the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then 
he could walk to the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is 
evidence that part of seeing the flowers is locating them in his 
model of the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of 
flowers or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. 
Gray, Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us 
that signals from the external world come to the brain and all 
conscious experiences results from brain's activity. So everything 
what a person feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers" is basically generated by the brain (hence the name: 
Virtual world theory). Gray puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In 
a very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is 
not out there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived 
world". When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers", this belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious 
experiences) and this is clearly located somewhere else as the 
physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive 
realism? In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to 
what Rovelli says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to 
the attached picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world. The physical world 
is a construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen 
Strawson's explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of 
consciousness, with which I mostly agree: 
https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees 
red flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the 
picture. The person sees the red flowers outside of him. 
However, could we say that the person sees the red flowers in 
the same position where the physical object is located? How 
would you answer this question? You changes in the picture do 
not give a clear answer to this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, 
but youhave
> learned that it is due to 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:



On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .


I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


I don't know what you mean by "directly".  


I mean direct vs. indirect realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism


 We have a theory of how 
people see red flowers.  It involves photons and brain processes and red 
flowers that are in a location.  I'm pretty sure you're familiar with 
this theory.  Do you reject it?


Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept it.




Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
the physical world?




Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?


I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.


The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".


Evgenii


Brent



Evgeny


Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't 
know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach out with 
stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a ball and 
hit the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then he could 
walk to the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is evidence 
that part of seeing the flowers is locating them in his model of 
the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of 
flowers or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. 
Gray, Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us 
that signals from the external world come to the brain and all 
conscious experiences results from brain's activity. So everything 
what a person feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers" is basically generated by the brain (hence the name: 
Virtual world theory). Gray puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In a 
very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is not 
out there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived world". 
When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers", this 
belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious experiences) and 
this is clearly located somewhere else as the physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive 
realism? In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to 
what Rovelli says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to 
the attached picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world.  The physical world 
is a construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen 
Strawson's explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of 
consciousness, with which I mostly agree: 
https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red 
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. 
The person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we 
say that the person sees the red flowers in the same position 
where the physical object is located? How would you answer this 
question? You changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to 
this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but 
youhave
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons 
in your eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact 
redness (a).


I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine 
Consciousness, 2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not 
essential, what is important that 

FW: Happy Easter

[Philip Benjamin]

Philip Benjamin  Friday, April 2, 2021 9:24 AM  
general_the...@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Happy Easter

Poem Easter 2021 Philip Benjamin
Rigorous religious rebels resolutely rejected
Immanuel's final affirmation of I AM claim
Sun set sensing the swan song "It is finished"
Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani cry afore that calm
Never, never shall curse of death trump néa zoí
Philip Benjamin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704558E92E4FCD2B2AA8A18A87A9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

RE: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
 First of all, just a cue: most if not all postings here are responses to 
the postings of somebody else. I identify certain things, especially occultist 
mysticism, as WAMP [Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] and not science, which does 
not refer to any particular person(s), rather a self-description or a general 
observation .  Paganism is genuinely germane here, since civilized and erudite 
pagan Augustine’s “instant transformation” pulled the West out from Greco-Roman 
PAGANISM, philosophies, polytheistic superstitions and “unknown gods” into a 
path of knowable universe and investigative explorations that finally led to 
the development of science and technologies which the rest of the pagan world 
of civilizations and mystic scholarships could not initiate. The WAMP is a 
stealing beneficiary of that Augustinian Trust, including the Five Day 
workweek, Sabbaticals, etc. which are uniquely Scriptural and unheard of in 
other cultures.  That is not  “white trash” (N/A to Philip Benjamin anyway) as 
some here label, but a hard historical fact.
As regards Bruno Marchal’s musings below, some general points need be 
enumerated.
1 .  Ones’ worldview is not necessarily science, even if it be based on 
scientific observations. Bohr’s Taoism or Jungian sorceries are not
  necessarily sciences. They are worldviews based on the notions of 
particle-wave dualism and the BOTH & logical fallacy. Wave-
  likeness is not waviness. Particles behave like waves which can be 
described mathematically by via AS IF logic.
2 . Bio dark-matter is to astrophysical dark-matter, as bio light-matter 
(Periodic Table) is to astrophysical light-matter (H & He).
3 . laws of chemistry are universal. Chemical bonds are spin-governed particle 
configurations of duets and octets.
4 . It is more unethical than unscientific to deny chemistry to 95% of unknown 
matter, but accept that for 5% of the known matter.
5 . Bio dark-matter particles of negligible mass with respect to electrons may 
compose of axions, monopoles and/or neutrinos or
 something else.
6 .  There is an “Additional Mass” reported on growth, and the same mass 
missing on death of organisms grown in hermetically sealed
   tubes.
  These experiments are reproducible and there is no legitimate reason why 
the WAMP do not repeat them for confirmation.
7 .   There is an increase of biophoton emission rate by an order of magnitude 
across the taxa (from human cells to plant cells in
Petri-dish). Also, the biophoton emission rates increase with stress on 
the cell growth with a burst of biophotons at cell death.
 Note: All references to all these experiments have been cited before.
 Philip Benjamin

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11:45 AM   everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg


On 26 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin 
mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

  PB. From a scientific point of view, awakening refers to the extrinsic 
energization of the non-electric, non-entropic, bio twin formed from the moment 
of conception from  bio dark-matter and its chemistries.

>From a scientific point of view that is a (vague) theory. I will wait for the 
>axioms, and the consequences, and the means of testing.

If by Pagan you mean the believer in Matter, you seem doubly Pagan to me, as 
you assume two sorts of matter.

Personally I tend to see (weak) Materialism as a lasting superstition. It will 
disappear from the natural science, or the science of the observable, like 
vitalism has disappeared from biology.
What what I see are universal machine measuring numbers and inferring all sorts 
of relation betweens those numbers. And yes, some claim bizarre things about 
those things not capturable by numbers, and they are correct on this.
When doing metaphysics with the scientific method, we can use, today, the tools 
provided by mathematical logic, to distinguish better the realities (“models” 
or “interpretations” in the sense of logician) and the 
theories/machines/words/numbers/finite-thing we are tackling about, and can be 
talking with, or “in” (standard use).

I have no idea of your assumptions, and invoking dark matter is very weird, do 
you mean a theory with axions? I am not sure anybody have found a theory of 
Dark Matter, and I am personally skeptical on any ontological matter, as there 
are no evidence for that (despite Newtonian physics would contradict Mechanism, 
and be an evidence against mechanism if it were true).

Gödel’s theorem protects Mechanism from Diagonalisation à la Lucas-Penrose, and 
it happens that it protects mechanism from many misuse of quantum mechanics, 
that it predicts “semantically” and “syntactlcally”, and this without 
ontological commitment, just the usual simple fact of the type 2+2=4 or KSK = 
S, ...

Bruno

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

>Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .

I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a person 
sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to the 
physical world?


Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?

Evgeny


Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't 
know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach out with 
stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a ball and hit 
the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then he could walk to 
the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is evidence that part of 
seeing the flowers is locating them in his model of the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of flowers 
or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. Gray, 
Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us that 
signals from the external world come to the brain and all conscious 
experiences results from brain's activity. So everything what a person 
feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers" is basically 
generated by the brain (hence the name: Virtual world theory). Gray 
puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In a 
very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is not out 
there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived world". 
When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers", this 
belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious experiences) and this 
is clearly located somewhere else as the physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive realism? 
In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to what Rovelli 
says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to the attached 
picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .  Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world.  The physical world is a 
construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen Strawson's 
explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of consciousness, with 
which I mostly agree: https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red 
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. The 
person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we say 
that the person sees the red flowers in the same position where the 
physical object is located? How would you answer this question? You 
changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but 
youhave
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in 
your eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness 
(a).


I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine 
Consciousness, 2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not 
essential, what is important that manifest world (bubble of 
experience on the picture) is spatially separated 


"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?

from the external world (black and white part). Photons from red 
flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees the red 
flowers somewhere else.


Which is completely beside Rovelli's point.  Rovelli is comparing 
two models of the external world that are both compatible with the 
manifest world.  Your cartoon version should be:







The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to 
as the virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to 
this end). This directly follows from what you have written - 
information comes into the eyes and it does not come out. So the 
manifest world that the person sees is completely separated from 
the external physical world.


That's self-contradictory.  If it's "completely separated" then 
information cannot come in.




One could claim