Re: meditation

2013-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Jan 2013, at 00:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Dear Bruno and Stephen,


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net 
 wrote:

On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a  
long and deep computations is going through our state, but comp  
suggest that the big bang is not the beginning.


Dear Bruno,

I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang  
per observer.


Couldn't the Big Bang just be the simplest possible state? That  
doesn't mean it's the beginning, just that it's a likely predecessor  
to any other state. The more complex a state is, the smaller the  
number of states that it is likely to be a predecessor of.


Are not the big bangs just branches of the quantum vaccum, seen from  
inside-1p?


The problem here is that we don't yet have a comprehensive QM. The  
physicists needs a correct Quantum account of mass, which is still  
lacking. We know nothing about the big bang, just what happens  
10^(-35) seconds later ...
Is there a big bang with comp, in arithmetic? Yes, a lot, but hard to  
see why some can be winning the measure game, without leading to some  
consistent predecessors.


Bruno

PS I am very busy, and there are many mails. If I forget to answer  
some questions, please don't hesitate to recall me, thanks. For those  
interested, an UDA thread is again active on entheogen.com.








--
Onward!

Stephen



--
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 
.


Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-30 Thread meekerdb

On 1/29/2013 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp predicts an infinite past. 


What does that mean?  That the UD has performed infinitely many steps before *now*?  Or do 
you propose a more physical measure based on entropy?


Brent

But that infinity can play before the big bang, but also, perhaps, after, like if time 
was infinitely condensed in the first instant after the big-bang.


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Re: meditation

2013-01-30 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't, except to report it. 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-28, 14:24:05
Subject: Re: meditation




On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

IMHO meditation is a perfectly natural phenomenon
that does not need to be integrated into anything.


?


Then, why do you integrate it in the natural phenomenon?


Bruno










- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 07:09:43
Subject: Re: meditation




On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote:


I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the 
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs 
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.


OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect than 
meditation or wine.
Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are part of the 
research and they *can* be integrated in different scientific (thus 
hypothetical) theories. Rigor consists simply in keeping the interrogation 
marks.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Jan 2013, at 09:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/29/2013 6:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Comp predicts an infinite past.


What does that mean?  That the UD has performed infinitely many  
steps before *now*?


Before the 1-now, yes. By first person indeterminacy, all the  
computations seem to be extended.
Keep in mind that the physical reality is given by a relative first  
person experience, which by the invariance of the 1p for the delays,  
is given by all computations.






 Or do you propose a more physical measure based on entropy?


That need to be extracted, plausibly from the facts that the winning  
computation can handle the many incompressible oracles, that is: the  
very big inputs in the programs run by the UD.


Bruno





Brent

But that infinity can play before the big bang, but also, perhaps,  
after, like if time was infinitely condensed in the first instant  
after the big-bang.


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Jan 2013, at 07:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2013 9:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as  
any observer only knows their direct observations, which could be  
created by any one of an infinite number of possible programs going  
through the same state.  Any one of these programs will have its  
own consistent history, but unless analyzed or explored further,  
that information is in a sense, undecided.  It is like: Before you  
finish reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your  
toothbrush could have been any possible color.  However, now that  
you have finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you  
have changed the set of possible programs manifest your  
consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, when you aren't  
looking or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your  
children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some  
constraints of what is compatible with your experience in the  
moment you are not thinking of them).  And it is only when we stop  
and think we can for a time, lock down that possibility.


'You' are only a consistent history of experiences too, and so 'you'  
could be almost anything also.  But this fails to explain the  
intersubjective agreement of observers: That you AND your wife agree  
on what your children look like.  So unless you are a solipist, just  
dreaming your wife's agreement, an external reality becomes a good  
hypothesis.


Good point. With comp the external reality is arithmetic or something  
Turing equivalent.


Bruno





Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:27, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a  
long and deep computations is going through our state, but comp  
suggest that the big bang is not the beginning.


Dear Bruno,

   I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang  
per observer.


The problem is that with comp, by the first person indeterminacy,  
physics comes from the statistics on all computations, and below the  
substitution levels, we have an a priori unbounded amount of  
information, a bit like the infinities in the quantum field theories.


If the string theorists can get support for the explanation of the big  
bang in term of branes collision, it might be a confirmation of comp.


Comp predicts an infinite past. But that infinity can play before the  
big bang, but also, perhaps, after, like if time was infinitely  
condensed in the first instant after the big-bang. The brane  
collision seems to me to fit better. Well, the comp physics is still  
in its embryonic state, so it is premature to really handle those  
questions.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-29 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Jan 2013, at 20:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/27/2013 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 25 Jan 2013, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/25/2013 8:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not  
convince me. We could be conscious but without read/write access  
to our memories, so how would we know afterwords? But maybe we  
are experiencing the same level of consciousness as a bacteria.


People are not unconscious when asleep.  People sleep through the  
chiming of clocks


That means that they might be disconnected from their environment,  
not that they are unconscious.


Why do you critique a half a sentence?


And worst than that. I read People are not conscious when asleep,  
which explains actually why I didn't take into account the second half  
of the sentence.


Sorry, it is all my fault.

Bruno





Brent.


Bruno



but will wake instantly if you whisper their name.

Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6054 - Release Date:  
01/24/13


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.





--
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 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-29 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:27, Stephen P. King wrote:

 On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long and
 deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that the big
 bang is not the beginning.


 Dear Bruno,

I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang per
 observer.


 The problem is that with comp, by the first person indeterminacy, physics
 comes from the statistics on all computations, and below the substitution
 levels, we have an a priori unbounded amount of information, a bit like the
 infinities in the quantum field theories.

 If the string theorists can get support for the explanation of the big bang
 in term of branes collision, it might be a confirmation of comp.

 Comp predicts an infinite past. But that infinity can play before the big
 bang, but also, perhaps, after, like if time was infinitely condensed in the
 first instant after the big-bang. The brane collision seems to me to fit
 better. Well, the comp physics is still in its embryonic state, so it is
 premature to really handle those questions.

 Bruno


In the beginning, 26d strings separated into a 14d Many-World MW
Metaverse and 12d MW universes, both containing supersymmetry
If we assume that the 14d Metaverse came from a primordial singularity
containing the 26d Unified Field, then since that field is analog, it
cannot possess digital arithmetics. Rather the singularity must  first
spawn the Metaverse spacetime and its Calabi-Yau compact manifold
subspace. The arithmetics then comes from the discrete Metaverse
Compact Manifolds. The Primordial singularity also spawns a 4
dimensional Block Space which is the medium where the arithmetic
results for all time are written.   . In the first instant after this
biggest of all bangs, the arithmetics compute everything that will
happen in the future including the existence of matter and energy as
well as brane-collision big bangs. Since it also computes
consciousness, and eventually biology in the 12d universes evolves
independent consciousnesses with free will, recomputation will be
required from time to time or continually.
Richard



 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-29 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:20:11 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal 
 mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: 
 wrote: 
  
  On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:27, Stephen P. King wrote: 
  
  On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long 
 and 
  deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that 
 the big 
  bang is not the beginning. 
  
  
  Dear Bruno, 
  
 I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang per 
  observer. 
  
  
  The problem is that with comp, by the first person indeterminacy, 
 physics 
  comes from the statistics on all computations, and below the 
 substitution 
  levels, we have an a priori unbounded amount of information, a bit like 
 the 
  infinities in the quantum field theories. 
  
  If the string theorists can get support for the explanation of the big 
 bang 
  in term of branes collision, it might be a confirmation of comp. 
  
  Comp predicts an infinite past. But that infinity can play before the 
 big 
  bang, but also, perhaps, after, like if time was infinitely condensed in 
 the 
  first instant after the big-bang. The brane collision seems to me to 
 fit 
  better. Well, the comp physics is still in its embryonic state, so it is 
  premature to really handle those questions. 
  
  Bruno 


 In the beginning, 26d strings separated into a 14d Many-World MW 
 Metaverse and 12d MW universes, 


How do you know the strings aren't made of smaller strands, and that those 
aren't made of smaller fibers, and then molecules, and then muscular 
twinkles?

Craig

 

 both containing supersymmetry 
 If we assume that the 14d Metaverse came from a primordial singularity 
 containing the 26d Unified Field, then since that field is analog, it 
 cannot possess digital arithmetics. Rather the singularity must  first 
 spawn the Metaverse spacetime and its Calabi-Yau compact manifold 
 subspace. The arithmetics then comes from the discrete Metaverse 
 Compact Manifolds. The Primordial singularity also spawns a 4 
 dimensional Block Space which is the medium where the arithmetic 
 results for all time are written.. In the first instant after this 
 biggest of all bangs, the arithmetics compute everything that will 
 happen in the future including the existence of matter and energy as 
 well as brane-collision big bangs. Since it also computes 
 consciousness, and eventually biology in the 12d universes evolves 
 independent consciousnesses with free will, recomputation will be 
 required from time to time or continually. 
 Richard 


  
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
  
  
  
  -- 
  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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 
  To post to this group, send email to 
  everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 

  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
  
  


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-29 Thread Stephen P. King

On 1/29/2013 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Jan 2013, at 07:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2013 9:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as 
any observer only knows their direct observations, which could be 
created by any one of an infinite number of possible programs going 
through the same state.  Any one of these programs will have its own 
consistent history, but unless analyzed or explored further, that 
information is in a sense, undecided.  It is like: Before you 
finish reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your 
toothbrush could have been any possible color.  However, now that 
you have finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you 
have changed the set of possible programs manifest your 
consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking 
or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your 
children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some 
constraints of what is compatible with your experience in the moment 
you are not thinking of them).  And it is only when we stop and 
think we can for a time, lock down that possibility.


'You' are only a consistent history of experiences too, and so 'you' 
could be almost anything also.  But this fails to explain the 
intersubjective agreement of observers: That you AND your wife agree 
on what your children look like.  So unless you are a solipist, just 
dreaming your wife's agreement, an external reality becomes a good 
hypothesis.


Good point. With comp the external reality is arithmetic or something 
Turing equivalent.


Bruno



Hi,

ISTM, that unless one stipulates an entity separable from the 
solipsistic person, denoted as you here, that can distinguish somehow 
between the state of just dreaming your wife's agreement and an 
external reality  that these two states should be taken as identical, 
or at least 1p isomorphic. The observer's default state is that of the 
solipsist and then somehow it comes to believe that there is something 
real outside of that which may or may not correspond to what it can 
dream of.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-29 Thread Stephen P. King

On 1/29/2013 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Jan 2013, at 18:27, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a 
long and deep computations is going through our state, but comp 
suggest that the big bang is not the beginning.


Dear Bruno,

   I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang 
per observer.


The problem is that with comp, by the first person indeterminacy, 
physics comes from the statistics on all computations, and below the 
substitution levels, we have an a priori unbounded amount of 
information, a bit like the infinities in the quantum field theories.

Dear Bruno,

Yes, but there has to be a greatest lower bound, no? The infinities 
in QFT's have to renormalize (cancel out) in order to make 
calculations/predictions.





If the string theorists can get support for the explanation of the big 
bang in term of branes collision, it might be a confirmation of comp.


I am not sure that such is even possible! How does one obtain a 
meaningful prediction based on phenomena that is, by definition, 
external to the 3,1 part of the observable universe? The best chance 
that I have seen is some proposed superpartner particle to play the role 
of dark matter.




Comp predicts an infinite past.


Yes, it predicts an eternal universe in a totality sense, I 
understand that . I can trying to look at the phenomena that a single 
observer (defined consistent to comp) would have as 1p in any 
vanishingly small duration. It would have to have an upper bound, even 
if only for complexity reasons, no?


But that infinity can play before the big bang, but also, perhaps, 
after, like if time was infinitely condensed in the first instant 
after the big-bang. The brane collision seems to me to fit better. 
Well, the comp physics is still in its embryonic state, so it is 
premature to really handle those questions.


I think that we should keep comp separated from M/brane theory...




--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi Roger,

On 27 Jan 2013, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno,

It isn't that we influence the universe,
the universe IS us.



Which universe?

Bruno





- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-27, 00:53:25
Subject: Re: meditation



On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 
 wrote:




On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

Hi Telmo,


On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of  
oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.


Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing  
it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer  
moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the  
consciousness of the successful meditator becomes identified with a  
larger set of states in the multi-verse?


Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that  
operates with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...).  
Apparently, they disconnect parts of the brain, so that the  
conscious part get its complexity reduced, and that might give a  
view of the multiverse (as in many salvia reports).


The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a  
theory rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not  
becoming trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities, 爏 
ome probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination  
of some infinities.


The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions)  
and in logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the  
Galois connection.


For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the  
mathematica sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to  
History, for example. It's the notion that past event did not  
actually happen in the common sense of the word, but are just  
valid solutions to a system of equations that is restricted by  
current experience.


Telmo,

I am partial to these types of ideas.� I think similar ideas have  
been reflected by many scientists:


John Wheeler's participatory universe: 
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc
To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare  
shapers and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's  
hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop,  
a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just  
the present and the future but the past as well.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the  
near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense,  
participators in bringing about something of the universe in the  
distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in  
the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's  
right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout  
the universe, are the creators牀 or at least the minds that make the  
universe manifest.


It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of  
quantum mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Consistent_histories ) or Feynman's path integral formulation which  
is described as a sum over histories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation 
 ).


I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as  
any observer only knows their direct observations, which could be  
created by any one of an infinite number of possible programs going  
through the same state.� Any one of these programs will have its  
own consistent history, but unless analyzed or explored further,  
that information is in a sense, undecided.� It is like: Before you  
finish reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your  
toothbrush could have been any possible color.� However, now that  
you have finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you  
have changed the set of possible programs manifest your  
consciousness.� It is almost scary to think, when you aren't  
looking or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your  
children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some  
constraints of what is compatible with your experience in the moment  
you are not thinking of them).� And it is only when we stop and  
think we can for a time, lock down that possibility.


Jason


--
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 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group

Re: meditation

2013-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Jan 2013, at 13:44, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote:


I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.


OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect  
than meditation or wine.


What are the bad secondary effects of meditation?


That's a big subject as it depends on the many technics. The usual  
lead often to problem in knees, back, neck, due to prolonged  
immobility. Personally I lost sight or get blurred visions, as I got a  
too much big eyes' muscles relaxation (the main reason I stopped).







Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are  
part of the research and they *can* be integrated in different  
scientific (thus hypothetical) theories.


Could you say more about those experiences?


Well Charles Tart, if I remember well,  talked about some persons able  
to leave the body, and capable of reading some text that he has hide  
somewhere before. But none of those experiences have been reproduced  
with anything like genuine statistical evidences.
Yet there are plenty of doctor witnesses which asserts that in their  
career they have known case of people capable of describing happenings  
during the operation, when they were either under anesthetic or close  
to death. It is hard to test or to refute. It is easy to dismiss also.


Note this would not be more a threat for some materialist beliefs than  
comp already is, but with respect to comp, it might add to the  
evidences that our substitution level might be lower than  
neurophilosophers think.


I am agnostic on all this.

Bruno





Rigor consists simply in keeping the interrogation marks.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
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 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

IMHO meditation is a perfectly natural phenomenon
that does not need to be integrated into anything.


?

Then, why do you integrate it in the natural phenomenon?

Bruno







- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-27, 07:09:43
Subject: Re: meditation


On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote:


I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.


OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect  
than meditation or wine.
Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are  
part of the research and they *can* be integrated in different  
scientific (thus hypothetical) theories. Rigor consists simply in  
keeping the interrogation marks.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Jan 2013, at 13:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:



Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to  
dissociate state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting  
strange realities.


Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not  
convince me.


Me neither. I have always suspected, like Descartes, that we cannot  
be unconscious (if that is not trivial from the 1p perspective).  
And since 5 years, I have clear evidences that we are conscious in  
all phases of sleep, but it is a hell of work to be able to memorize  
the events, especially for the slow sleep (the non REM sleep, in  
french).


Can you tell us how you did it?
Personally, I noticed many times that when I wake up directly from  
deep sleep I am in an alien emotional state, compared to every day  
life emotions. I feel things that I have no name for.


Interesting. I have explored the rem state for years. I have dream  
diaries, where I describe the texture, the colors, the type of  
feeling, and if it is lucid, non-lucid, contra-lucid, pre-lucid (there  
is a large variety of 'altered conscious state' in dreams).


In fact, from 1989 to 1994, I did some training of myself into the  
lucid state (getting an average of four lucid dreams per month). In  
1994, I succeeded for the first time to stay lucid  falling in sleep,  
and remain conscious during the low sleep before the start of the  
dreams, and that was pretty alluring.


I don't recommend the technic, as it leads very easily to insomnia.  
The technic was mainly:


1) Do whatever to be extremely tired (example: preliminary white  
night(s), long walk during the day, ...)

2) Absorb a huge quantity of coffee before going to bed.

As you can guess there are variants, like using alcohol or whatever.

The difficulty relies in a frustration, between letting oneself  
completely go, and sleep, and still doing the work of maintaining  
attention focused on the fact that we are conscious.


Usually we go to bed to relax and let it go (including the memories  
and the making of memories). To get lucid at night (enough to keep  
consciousness, and memorizing it), you have to still make memories (to  
be able to witness the consciousness, so to speak), and simultaneously  
letting yourself go enough to let your brain handle the sleep process.


No doubt you will perturb the process all along, but then in first  
person consciousness studies we are our only guinea-pig.


In the slow sleep, there are mixture of nothing but consciousness,  
sometimes a sort of verbosity, and there are sort of dreams which  
apparently mix and jump from many scenarios to completely different  
one, very quickly, and we don't, normally, remember any of this. They  
can support contents  which are often related to the thoughts of the  
day. (With fever similar states can become quite obsessive).


You can't practice this often, and that experience (with coffee) was  
exceptional. But to be frank, I have progressed in that kind of  
observation in 2008, when I discovered Salvia divinorum. It seems far  
more efficacious, and far less toxic, than coffee, before bed.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno,

It isn't that we influence the universe,
the universe IS us.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 00:53:25
Subject: Re: meditation





On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:






On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Hi Telmo,


On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of oneness 
with the universe, non separation, etc.

Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's 
complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could 
it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful 
meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse?

Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.



It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates with 
dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they disconnect 
parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its complexity reduced, and 
that might give a view of the multiverse (as in many salvia reports).

The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory rich 
enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming trivial. Then 
the point is that to get plural-realities, ?ome probabilistic interference has 
to play a role in the elimination of some infinities.

The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in logic 
(more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.



For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica 
sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for example. 
It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the common sense 
of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of equations that is 
restricted by current experience.

Telmo,

I am partial to these types of ideas.? I think similar ideas have been 
reflected by many scientists:

John Wheeler's participatory universe: 
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc
To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers and 
creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that the 
universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute 
to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as 
well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and 
here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in 
bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one 
explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we 
and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the 
creators? or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.

It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of quantum 
mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories ) or Feynman's 
path integral formulation which is described as a sum over histories ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation
 ).

I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any observer 
only knows their direct observations, which could be created by any one of an 
infinite number of possible programs going through the same state.? Any one of 
these programs will have its own consistent history, but unless analyzed or 
explored further, that information is in a sense, undecided.? It is like: 
Before you finish reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your 
toothbrush could have been any possible color.? However, now that you have 
finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you have changed the set of 
possible programs manifest your consciousness.? It is almost scary to think, 
when you aren't looking or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, 
your children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some 
constraints of what is compatible with your experience in the moment you are 
not thinking of them).? And it is only when we stop and think we can for a 
time, lock down that possibility.

Jason


-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

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

Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote:


I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.


OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect  
than meditation or wine.
Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are  
part of the research and they *can* be integrated in different  
scientific (thus hypothetical) theories. Rigor consists simply in  
keeping the interrogation marks.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 25 Jan 2013, at 17:22, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

Hi Telmo,


On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of  
oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.


Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing  
it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer  
moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness  
of the successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of  
states in the multi-verse?


Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that  
operates with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...).  
Apparently, they disconnect parts of the brain, so that the  
conscious part get its complexity reduced, and that might give a  
view of the multiverse (as in many salvia reports).


The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a  
theory rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not  
becoming trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities,   
some probabilistic interference has to play a role in the  
elimination of some infinities.


The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions)  
and in logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the  
Galois connection.


For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the  
mathematica sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to  
History, for example. It's the notion that past event did not  
actually happen in the common sense of the word, but are just  
valid solutions to a system of equations that is restricted by  
current experience. So if we start doing an archaeological  
exploration we are going to find objects that are consistent with  
previous civilisations, but this is just a solution to the system of  
equations that is consistent with present reality.


That's consistent with comp, I think.




I'm not defending (not denying) this model of reality, but think  
it's an interesting thought experiment. It puts the big bang in a  
new light: you're just looking so far back in time that the simplest  
of solutions works -- everything is concentrated on a single spot of  
zero complexity.


The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long  
and deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest  
that the big bang is not the beginning.







Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to  
dissociate state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting  
strange realities.


Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not  
convince me.


Me neither. I have always suspected, like Descartes, that we cannot be  
unconscious (if that is not trivial from the 1p perspective). And  
since 5 years, I have clear evidences that we are conscious in all  
phases of sleep, but it is a hell of work to be able to memorize the  
events, especially for the slow sleep (the non REM sleep, in french).




We could be conscious but without read/write access to our memories,  
so how would we know afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the  
same level of consciousness as a bacteria.


OK.






It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of  
consciousness (as opposed to producer of consciousness).


Aldus Huxley talks about that in Doors of Perception, but I'm sure  
you know that!


Indeed :)

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:




 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Hi Telmo,


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing
 it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer
 moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.


 It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates
 with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they
 disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its
 complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in
 many salvia reports).

 The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory
 rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming
 trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities,  some
 probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some
 infinities.

 The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in
 logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.


 For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica
 sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for
 example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the
 common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of
 equations that is restricted by current experience.


 Telmo,

 I am partial to these types of ideas.  I think similar ideas have been
 reflected by many scientists:

 John Wheeler's participatory universe:
 http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc
 To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers
 and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that
 the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we
 contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future
 but the past as well.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
 *Wheeler:* We are participators in bringing into being not only the near
 and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators
 in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we
 have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we
 need more?
 *Martin Redfern:* Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right
 then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe,
 are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.

 It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of
 quantum mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories )
 or Feynman's path integral formulation which is described as a sum over
 histories (
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation).

 I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any
 observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by
 any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same
 state.  Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but
 unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense,
 undecided.  It is like: Before you finish reading the second half of this
 sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible
 color.  However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a
 memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your
 consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or
 imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could
 look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is
 compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of
 them).  And it is only when we stop and think we can for a time, lock
 down that possibility.


Nice. I always felt that but never expressed it so clearly.




 Jason

  --
 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.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this 

Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote:

  I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the
 links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
 suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
 rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs
 as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.


 OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect than
 meditation or wine.


What are the bad secondary effects of meditation?


 Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are part of
 the research and they *can* be integrated in different scientific (thus
 hypothetical) theories.


Could you say more about those experiences?


 Rigor consists simply in keeping the interrogation marks.

 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 25 Jan 2013, at 17:22, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Hi Telmo,


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing
 it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer
 moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.


 It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates
 with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they
 disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its
 complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in
 many salvia reports).

 The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory
 rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming
 trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities,  some
 probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some
 infinities.

 The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in
 logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.


 For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica
 sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for
 example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the
 common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of
 equations that is restricted by current experience. So if we start doing
 an archaeological exploration we are going to find objects that are
 consistent with previous civilisations, but this is just a solution to the
 system of equations that is consistent with present reality.


 That's consistent with comp, I think.



 I'm not defending (not denying) this model of reality, but think it's an
 interesting thought experiment. It puts the big bang in a new light: you're
 just looking so far back in time that the simplest of solutions works --
 everything is concentrated on a single spot of zero complexity.


 The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long and
 deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that the big
 bang is not the beginning.






 Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to
 dissociate state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting strange
 realities.


 Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince
 me.


 Me neither. I have always suspected, like Descartes, that we cannot be
 unconscious (if that is not trivial from the 1p perspective). And since 5
 years, I have clear evidences that we are conscious in all phases of sleep,
 but it is a hell of work to be able to memorize the events, especially
 for the slow sleep (the non REM sleep, in french).


Can you tell us how you did it?
Personally, I noticed many times that when I wake up directly from deep
sleep I am in an alien emotional state, compared to every day life
emotions. I feel things that I have no name for.





 We could be conscious but without read/write access to our memories, so
 how would we know afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the same level
 of consciousness as a bacteria.


 OK.






 It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of consciousness
 (as opposed to producer of consciousness).


 Aldus Huxley talks about that in Doors of Perception, but I'm sure you
 know that!


 Indeed :)

 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

IMHO meditation is a perfectly natural phenomenon
that does not need to be integrated into anything.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 07:09:43
Subject: Re: meditation




On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote:


I think that meditation is a way of cutting out the 
links of consciousness to the noise of the brain,
suggesting that Cs is not a product of the brain,
rather the reverse. It lets us experience Cs 
as it really is, cosmic, free of the brain.


OK. Note that there are other methods with less bad secondary effect than 
meditation or wine.
Those experiences are not concluding, in the public sense, but are part of the 
research and they *can* be integrated in different scientific (thus 
hypothetical) theories. Rigor consists simply in keeping the interrogation 
marks.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:46:02 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Bruno,
  
 It isn't that we influence the universe,
 the universe IS us.


Yes! Us liberals, socialists, Jews, women, Nazis, capitalists.. The 
universe is all of us.
 

  
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Jason Resch javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-27, 00:53:25
 *Subject:* Re: meditation

  

 On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes 
 te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
  wrote:




  On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal 
 mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
  wrote:

 Hi Telmo, 


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of 
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing 
 it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer 
 moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of 
 the 
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the 
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.


 It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates 
 with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they 
 disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its 
 complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in 
 many salvia reports).

 The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory 
 rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming 
 trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities, �ome probabilistic 
 interference has to play a role in the elimination of some infinities.

 The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in 
 logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.


 For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica 
 sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for 
 example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the 
 common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of 
 equations that is restricted by current experience.


 Telmo,

 I am partial to these types of ideas.� I think similar ideas have been 
 reflected by many scientists:

 John Wheeler's participatory universe: 
 http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc
 To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers 
 and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that 
 the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we 
 contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future 
 but the past as well.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
 *Wheeler:* We are participators in bringing into being not only the near 
 and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators 
 in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we 
 have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we 
 need more?
 *Martin Redfern:* Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right 
 then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, 
 are the creators� or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.

 It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of 
 quantum mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories ) 
 or Feynman's path integral formulation which is described as a sum over 
 histories ( 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation).

 I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any 
 observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by 
 any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same 
 state.� Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but 
 unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense, 
 undecided.� It is like: Before you finish reading the second half of this 
 sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible 
 color.� However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a 
 memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your 
 consciousness.� It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or 
 imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could 
 look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is 
 compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of 
 them).� And it is only when we stop and think we can for a time, lock 
 down that possibility.

 Jason

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth

Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Stephen P. King

On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long 
and deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest 
that the big bang is not the beginning. 


Dear Bruno,

I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang 
per observer.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread meekerdb

On 1/27/2013 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Jan 2013, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/25/2013 8:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince me. We could 
be conscious but without read/write access to our memories, so how would we know 
afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the same level of consciousness as a bacteria.


People are not unconscious when asleep.  People sleep through the chiming of 
clocks


That means that they might be disconnected from their environment, not that they are 
unconscious.


Why do you critique a half a sentence?

Brent.


Bruno



but will wake instantly if you whisper their name.

Brent

--
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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6054 - Release Date: 01/24/13

--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:




 On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 25 Jan 2013, at 17:22, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Hi Telmo,


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing
 it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer
 moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.


 It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates
 with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they
 disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its
 complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in
 many salvia reports).

 The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory
 rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming
 trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities,  some
 probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some
 infinities.

 The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in
 logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.


 For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica
 sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for
 example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the
 common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of
 equations that is restricted by current experience. So if we start doing
 an archaeological exploration we are going to find objects that are
 consistent with previous civilisations, but this is just a solution to the
 system of equations that is consistent with present reality.


 That's consistent with comp, I think.



 I'm not defending (not denying) this model of reality, but think it's an
 interesting thought experiment. It puts the big bang in a new light: you're
 just looking so far back in time that the simplest of solutions works --
 everything is concentrated on a single spot of zero complexity.


 The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long and
 deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that the big
 bang is not the beginning.






 Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to
 dissociate state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting strange
 realities.


 Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince
 me.


 Me neither. I have always suspected, like Descartes, that we cannot be
 unconscious (if that is not trivial from the 1p perspective). And since 5
 years, I have clear evidences that we are conscious in all phases of sleep,
 but it is a hell of work to be able to memorize the events, especially
 for the slow sleep (the non REM sleep, in french).


 Can you tell us how you did it?
 Personally, I noticed many times that when I wake up directly from deep
 sleep I am in an alien emotional state, compared to every day life
 emotions. I feel things that I have no name for.



I am interested to hear Bruno's answer as well, but here is an account by
Feynman on practicing recall of falling asleep you might also find
interesting:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7papZR4oVssCpg=PA48lpg=PA48dq=feynman+falling+asleepsource=blots=esS2abjP0Wsig=LE7R3ZFOctzrhKhFn8DJdeNmrkAhl=ensa=Xei=6JUFUZvyFeybyAHE6IGIDQved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepageq=feynman%20falling%20asleepf=false
(Starting on page 47)

Jason

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2013 11:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2013 9:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

 I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any
 observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by
 any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same
 state.  Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but
 unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense,
 undecided.  It is like: Before you finish reading the second half of this
 sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible
 color.  However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a
 memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your
 consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or
 imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could
 look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is
 compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of
 them).  And it is only when we stop and think we can for a time, lock
 down that possibility.


 'You' are only a consistent history of experiences too, and so 'you'
 could be almost anything also.  But this fails to explain the
 intersubjective agreement of observers: That you AND your wife agree on
 what your children look like.


 I don't see why it should fail to explain that agreement.  Any fact you
 become conscious of should be consistent with all the other current content
 of your mind and immediately perceptible environment (which includes the
 apparent behavior of others).


 But you've begged the question by saying its a *fact* you become conscious
 of.  You have conscious experiences, including inferences about the world,
 but the inferences don't necessarily correspond to facts of the external
 reality.  So our hypothesis about the world and our relation to it must
 explain not only the consistency of intersubjective agreement, but also the
 inconsistencies of our errors and illusions.



Do you see a contradiction that appears in my my description?  I am not
seeing it.





 So unless you are a solipist, just dreaming your wife's agreement, an
 external reality becomes a good hypothesis.


 I think there is an underlying reality which explains the consistency of
 experiences.  I don't see why anything I said above implies the absence of
 an external reality nor solipsism.


 No it doesn't.  But the hypothetical external reality then obviates the
 worries you expressed above about your wife being 'almost anything' when
 you aren't looking.


Well they don't manifest as Oh no I am lost in the wrong universe, I
thought I was married to a blonde but now she is a brunette., so in that
sense, it is not a rational fear to have.  It is merely a strange and
unsettling thing to understand that when consequence of some fact is not
part of your current observer moment, said fact is indeterminant (in many
possible states) until you bring some consequence of that fact into your
current observer moment.

Jason



 Brent

 That external reality just happens to be so big and so varied that it is
 easy for observers (or souls) to get lost in it.

 Jason
 --
 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.

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6054 - Release Date: 01/24/13


  --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread meekerdb

On 1/27/2013 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
It is merely a strange and unsettling thing to understand that when consequence of some 
fact is not part of your current observer moment, said fact is indeterminant (in many 
possible states) until you bring some consequence of that fact into your current 
observer moment.


But now you seem to be retracting your formerly expressed inference of an external reality 
- unless you're referring to quantum randomness, which is indeterminate for everybody.


Brent

--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread freqflyer07281972
Dear Telmo,

With my recent post fresh in my mind, I think I can engage with you a bit 
on the meaning and purpose of meditation. 

I think the main point of meditation is to see 'what is' for 'what it is.' 
Nothing more, nothing less. 

All 'other worlds, other universes, other possibilities' are phantoms of 
the mind. For a simple proof of this, just consider the proliferation of 
various 'multiverse' interpretations of quantum mechanics! Meditation, 
though, grounds a person into themselves and into their environment. 
Perhaps in doing so, it makes you stop wanting things to be different than 
what they are, especially yourself. For it is only when you accept exactly 
who you are that you can live and act genuinely in the world. And because 
we are all individual and unique (redundant, i know), we all have to find 
this out for ourselves, since no one elses prescription will work for us, 
just like no organ from just anybody will work for ourselves in a 
transplant. 

Just my opinion, take or leave,

Best wishes,

Dan

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:17:49 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

 Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of 
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's 
 complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. 
 Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the 
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the 
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

 Telmo.


-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Telmo Menezes
Dear Bruno and Stephen,


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:

 On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest a long and
 deep computations is going through our state, but comp suggest that the big
 bang is not the beginning.


 Dear Bruno,

 I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big Bang per
 observer.


Couldn't the Big Bang just be the simplest possible state? That doesn't
mean it's the beginning, just that it's a likely predecessor to any other
state. The more complex a state is, the smaller the number of states that
it is likely to be a predecessor of.



 --
 Onward!

 Stephen



 --
 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
 **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .
 For more options, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 .




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-27 Thread Telmo Menezes
Dear Dan,


On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:41 PM, freqflyer07281972 
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Telmo,

 With my recent post fresh in my mind, I think I can engage with you a bit
 on the meaning and purpose of meditation.

 I think the main point of meditation is to see 'what is' for 'what it is.'
 Nothing more, nothing less.


Sure, that's my understanding too.



 All 'other worlds, other universes, other possibilities' are phantoms of
 the mind.


Ok, but then I want to know what the mind is...


 For a simple proof of this, just consider the proliferation of various
 'multiverse' interpretations of quantum mechanics! Meditation, though,
 grounds a person into themselves and into their environment.


Yes, but what are these things -- selves and environments?


 Perhaps in doing so, it makes you stop wanting things to be different than
 what they are,


That's good advice, but I find that the effort towards a TOE is motivated
mostly by a desire to understand, not for a desire for things to be
different. In my experience, people that think that the world should change
in a certain direction seem to have very definitive answers to these
questions.


 especially yourself. For it is only when you accept exactly who you are
 that you can live and act genuinely in the world. And because we are all
 individual and unique (redundant, i know), we all have to find this out for
 ourselves, since no one elses prescription will work for us, just like no
 organ from just anybody will work for ourselves in a transplant.

 Just my opinion, take or leave,


I'll take the wisdom but keep my doubts :)

Best,
Telmo.



 Best wishes,

 Dan


 On Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:17:49 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

 Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's
 complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments.
 Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

 Telmo.

  --
 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.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-26 Thread Jason Resch



On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 1/25/2013 8:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not  
convince me. We could be conscious but without read/write access to  
our memories, so how would we know afterwords? But maybe we are  
experiencing the same level of consciousness as a bacteria.


People are not unconscious when asleep.  People sleep through the  
chiming of clocks but will wake instantly if you whisper their name.


Brent



Well under the perspective of consciousness being fame in the brain,  
it could still be possible to be unconscious in sleep but awake when  
ones name is spoken, so long that the parts of the brain that listen  
and interpret words remain active.


They need not but propagate this information widely and throughout the  
brain, to the parts that remember, etc. and thus would (from the  
perspective of other parts of the brain) not even be happening.


The neurons are not inactive even during anestesia.  What is different  
is the signaling is dampened or confused (addition of noise) such that  
meaningful neural signals cannot travel as far as they normally which  
isolated brain regions from each other.


One surprising fact is how many chemicals can have this affect on the  
brain through apparently different pathways.  Even the element Xeon is  
an effective anesthetic.


Jason



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-26 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:




 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Hi Telmo,


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing
 it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer
 moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.


 It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates
 with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they
 disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its
 complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in
 many salvia reports).

 The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory
 rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming
 trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities,  some
 probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some
 infinities.

 The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in
 logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.


 For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica
 sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for
 example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the
 common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of
 equations that is restricted by current experience.


Telmo,

I am partial to these types of ideas.  I think similar ideas have been
reflected by many scientists:

John Wheeler's participatory universe:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UQS8KvJWKjc
To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; weare shapers
and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that
the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we
contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future
but the past as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
*Wheeler:* We are participators in bringing into being not only the near
and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators
in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we
have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we
need more?
*Martin Redfern:* Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right
then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe,
are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.

It also sounds not unlike the consistent histories interpretation of
quantum mechanics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories ) or
Feynman's path integral formulation which is described as a sum over
histories (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Feynman.27s_interpretation).

I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any
observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by
any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same
state.  Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but
unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense,
undecided.  It is like: Before you finish reading the second half of this
sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible
color.  However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a
memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your
consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or
imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could
look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is
compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of
them).  And it is only when we stop and think we can for a time, lock
down that possibility.

Jason

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-26 Thread meekerdb

On 1/26/2013 9:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any observer only 
knows their direct observations, which could be created by any one of an infinite number 
of possible programs going through the same state.  Any one of these programs will have 
its own consistent history, but unless analyzed or explored further, that information is 
in a sense, undecided.  It is like: Before you finish reading the second half of this 
sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible color.  However, 
now that you have finished reading it, and performed a memory look up you have changed 
the set of possible programs manifest your consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, 
when you aren't looking or or imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your 
children, they could look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is 
compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of them).  And it is 
only when we stop and think we can for a time, lock down that possibility.


'You' are only a consistent history of experiences too, and so 'you' could be almost 
anything also.  But this fails to explain the intersubjective agreement of observers: That 
you AND your wife agree on what your children look like.  So unless you are a solipist, 
just dreaming your wife's agreement, an external reality becomes a good hypothesis.


Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-26 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2013 9:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

 I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any
 observer only knows their direct observations, which could be created by
 any one of an infinite number of possible programs going through the same
 state.  Any one of these programs will have its own consistent history, but
 unless analyzed or explored further, that information is in a sense,
 undecided.  It is like: Before you finish reading the second half of this
 sentence, the color of your toothbrush could have been any possible
 color.  However, now that you have finished reading it, and performed a
 memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs manifest your
 consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking or or
 imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could
 look like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is
 compatible with your experience in the moment you are not thinking of
 them).  And it is only when we stop and think we can for a time, lock
 down that possibility.


 'You' are only a consistent history of experiences too, and so 'you' could
 be almost anything also.  But this fails to explain the intersubjective
 agreement of observers: That you AND your wife agree on what your children
 look like.


I don't see why it should fail to explain that agreement.  Any fact you
become conscious of should be consistent with all the other current content
of your mind and immediately perceptible environment (which includes the
apparent behavior of others).



 So unless you are a solipist, just dreaming your wife's agreement, an
 external reality becomes a good hypothesis.


I think there is an underlying reality which explains the consistency of
experiences.  I don't see why anything I said above implies the absence of
an external reality nor solipsism.  That external reality just happens to
be so big and so varied that it is easy for observers (or souls) to get
lost in it.

Jason

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-26 Thread meekerdb

On 1/26/2013 11:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 1/26/2013 9:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

I think what you are describing comes automatically with comp, as any 
observer only
knows their direct observations, which could be created by any one of an 
infinite
number of possible programs going through the same state.  Any one of these
programs will have its own consistent history, but unless analyzed or 
explored
further, that information is in a sense, undecided.  It is like: Before 
you finish
reading the second half of this sentence, the color of your toothbrush 
could have
been any possible color.  However, now that you have finished reading it, 
and
performed a memory look up you have changed the set of possible programs 
manifest
your consciousness.  It is almost scary to think, when you aren't looking 
or or
imagining/recalling what your mother, your wife, your children, they could 
look
like or be almost anything (within some constraints of what is compatible 
with your
experience in the moment you are not thinking of them).  And it is only 
when we
stop and think we can for a time, lock down that possibility.


'You' are only a consistent history of experiences too, and so 'you' could 
be almost
anything also.  But this fails to explain the intersubjective agreement of
observers: That you AND your wife agree on what your children look like.


I don't see why it should fail to explain that agreement.  Any fact you become conscious 
of should be consistent with all the other current content of your mind and immediately 
perceptible environment (which includes the apparent behavior of others).


But you've begged the question by saying its a *fact* you become conscious of.  You have 
conscious experiences, including inferences about the world, but the inferences don't 
necessarily correspond to facts of the external reality.  So our hypothesis about the 
world and our relation to it must explain not only the consistency of intersubjective 
agreement, but also the inconsistencies of our errors and illusions.




So unless you are a solipist, just dreaming your wife's agreement, an 
external
reality becomes a good hypothesis.


I think there is an underlying reality which explains the consistency of experiences.  I 
don't see why anything I said above implies the absence of an external reality nor 
solipsism. 


No it doesn't.  But the hypothetical external reality then obviates the worries you 
expressed above about your wife being 'almost anything' when you aren't looking.


Brent

That external reality just happens to be so big and so varied that it is easy for 
observers (or souls) to get lost in it.


Jason
--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6054 - Release Date: 01/24/13



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-25 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Hi Telmo,


 On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  Hi all,

 I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
 oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

 Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's
 complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments.
 Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
 successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the
 multi-verse?

 Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.


 It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates with
 dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they
 disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its
 complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in
 many salvia reports).

 The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory
 rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming
 trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities,  some
 probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some
 infinities.

 The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in
 logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection.


For a long time I have this weird idea that I don't have the mathematica
sophistication to correctly express. The idea aplies to History, for
example. It's the notion that past event did not actually happen in the
common sense of the word, but are just valid solutions to a system of
equations that is restricted by current experience. So if we start doing
an archaeological exploration we are going to find objects that are
consistent with previous civilisations, but this is just a solution to the
system of equations that is consistent with present reality.

I'm not defending (not denying) this model of reality, but think it's an
interesting thought experiment. It puts the big bang in a new light: you're
just looking so far back in time that the simplest of solutions works --
everything is concentrated on a single spot of zero complexity.



 Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to dissociate
 state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting strange realities.


Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince
me. We could be conscious but without read/write access to our memories, so
how would we know afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the same level
of consciousness as a bacteria.



 It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of consciousness
 (as opposed to producer of consciousness).


Aldus Huxley talks about that in Doors of Perception, but I'm sure you
know that!



 Bruno






 Telmo.

 --
 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 .
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
 **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .



-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-25 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 24 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:


I once had the experience of oneness with the universe.
As an almost teenager one winter I was sliding in an apple orchard
1/2 mile from home. It was so much fun that even after nightfall and
everybody else going home, I continued sliding down and trunging up
the hill.

Finally I just laid back on my sled and starred at the stars. It was
then that I experienced 'oneness with the universe'. It scared the
shit out of me and I ran all the way home.


Hmm... May be you were to young.

Similar story happens for me, except it did not scare me at all. On  
the contrary, leaning on the grass for hours in the dark, it was a  
sort of infinite relief and joy, and I stayed for a long time in  
contemplation, until I hear my parents shouting my name, that I  
eventually recognize. I got to prepare myself for some  
(understandable) row back on earth!


Bruno






Richard

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 
 wrote:

Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.

Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say  
reducing it's
complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer  
moments.

Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states  
in the

multi-verse?

Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.

Telmo.

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

Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@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.


--
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 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-25 Thread meekerdb

On 1/25/2013 8:22 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Even the idea that we are unconscious during deep sleep does not convince me. We could 
be conscious but without read/write access to our memories, so how would we know 
afterwords? But maybe we are experiencing the same level of consciousness as a bacteria.


People are not unconscious when asleep.  People sleep through the chiming of clocks but 
will wake instantly if you whisper their name.


Brent

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: meditation

2013-01-24 Thread Telmo Menezes
I imagine your story as a Calvin and Hobbes strip :)


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 I once had the experience of oneness with the universe.
 As an almost teenager one winter I was sliding in an apple orchard
 1/2 mile from home. It was so much fun that even after nightfall and
 everybody else going home, I continued sliding down and trunging up
 the hill.

 Finally I just laid back on my sled and starred at the stars. It was
 then that I experienced 'oneness with the universe'. It scared the
 shit out of me and I ran all the way home.
 Richard

 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of
  oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.
 
  Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's
  complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments.
  Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the
  successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in
 the
  multi-verse?
 
  Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.
 
  Telmo.
 
  --
  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.

 --
 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.



-- 
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.



Re: meditation

2013-01-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi Telmo,

On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi all,

I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of  
oneness with the universe, non separation, etc.


Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing  
it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer  
moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness  
of the successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of  
states in the multi-verse?


Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour.


It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates  
with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently,  
they disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its  
complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as  
in many salvia reports).


The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a  
theory rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not  
becoming trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities,   
some probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination  
of some infinities.


The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and  
in logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois  
connection.


Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to  
dissociate state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting  
strange realities.


It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of  
consciousness (as opposed to producer of consciousness).


Bruno






Telmo.

--
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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.