Can we hypothesize a little? Let's imagine for a minute a glitch in LCS. Let's imagine a baby is born on our planet and LCS "forgot" to designate a conciseness/soul for it. What such a human be like? The brain is still there, arms and legs are still there, but no soul/conciseness... Anyone?

Still born, I had such a birth.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette, are you saying that would happen by default? No soul - no human. Sort of like a preventive mechanism?

audiophile,

You seem like you might be thinking that perhaps there would be a simulacrum of a life maintained. It is not that there would be a mistake on the part of the LCS but that there are many potential problems within the rule set of PMR. The developmental process for babies can and do go awry. The LCS is very intimately involved in the creation of and maintenance of the VR of PMR. It quite well knows what is going on. In any of these situations, there is simply not an attachment or connection of an IUOC to the child that is not going to live as the system knows very well what will happen over this short time span. If there is any reason to in fact attach an IUOC to a child which will live long enough to require an IUOC to manage its decision space for a time, there will be volunteers as IUOCs who will readily take on such short term assignments in service to the LCS. Perhaps even in anticipation of being the child of a following pregnancy of that mother. The system well knows what it is doing.

Tom has described this. There are no loose ends left hanging. No one suffers needlessly from the point of view of the LCS. The system is not perfect, there can be 'glitches', but this need not be one of them or a matter for concern. That is a part of the reason for the future probable data base: The system can quite well look ahead and foresee requirements well into the future and catch any potential glitches long before they really occur as to have any significance here in PMR.

Ted

Ted, that's not what I was asking about. My question is: can a human live/exist without a soul/conciseness, in principle? Just imagine one couple left the radar screen of LCS and had a baby. The baby biologically was born in perfect health BUT no IUC was attached to it. Would this baby be able to grow, develop and turn into a grown-up human? That is my question.

My present level of understanding things says: absolutly not! That would be like a vegetable in a vegetable garden. Any other opinions?

I guess that anything would be possible if the LCS wished to make it happen. But that is not the way it is supposed to work. It would be very much like a vegetable growing in a garden. But basically Tom has said that most anything is possible in a VR. There have been reports of humans appearing to have reasonably normal lives but for some reason having a brain scan and being observed to have a very abnormal brain development. One I remember was like a thin layer on the inside of the skull. The news report did not say anything about intelligence and functionality or personality however. We are talking newspaper level, not scientific literature, but then we are not talking tabloid sensationalism either. I took it as a 'hint' of the VR nature of reality from the LCS.

In Tom's model of reality, that body would not function without an IUOC, but it could be made to appear as functioning. After all, people suffer brain death in a hospital and are maintained on medical equipment, breathing machines, etc. until they are finally removed from that life support. The body can appear to remain alive and not deteriorate for some time. But by a 'brain scan' there is no one left at home. I don't see it happening as a 'mistake' of the LCS however.

Ted

Without Consciousness there is nothing receive any information, or data.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I think this thread is leading to some confusion because the original poster is using the word consciousness when he should probably have just used "soul" or maybe IUOC instead.

Tom has said that if 4 attributes of consciousness are met (I don't remember what they are), then consciousness naturally arises. He has talked about how if scientists make a computer that has these 4 attributes, then consciousness should arise.

So I think the original poster is asking something like if it would it be possible for a human to have consciousness without an IUOC.

A related question would be if a computer would also have this ability if it met the 4 criteria.

What I can find from Tom referring to the consciousness (which term the damned search function refuses to search for) of computers is here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3535&p=8063&hilit=a ... uter#p8063 He does not there enumerate 4 attributes but states: Perhaps someone remembers where he stated this. Here he describes what is represented within his model of the development of consciousness as AUO and then AUM: A sufficiently complex self modifying computer. That is what we effectively had with the interacting proto IUOCs of Tom's model interacting in more and more complex ways over the RWW. This constitutes a complex self modifying computer. The sufficiency of the complexity would be demonstrated by the fact that consciousness did arise as AUO. Large computer systems would have to be specifically programmed with a program setting up many subroutines with different capabilities that could communicate randomly initially with the ability to self modify that communication based upon results, and results that it would itself have to evaluate, not its human programmers. Normally computers are loaded with programs to do specific things such as simulating large natural systems. This would have to be a special program to simulate the conditions required for consciousness to arise. This would indeed be an interesting experiment. One factor not mentioned would be just how much time would be required for this initially random process to require to evolve to consciousness. Judging by the LCS, it could take more than the lifetimes of the experimenters before just the right functions came together.

Ted

Mystics say everything is conscious. Even a rock is conscious on it own way. I would be impossible for LCS to forget it. LCS is not a separate entity. I don't know what Tom thinks about that but this is how I see it. All these UIOCs etc easily lead you out of the main reason you are here. To become "pure consciousness". That is why we try to lower our entropy.

Tolsku,

You should take a little time and read how I have recently shown the linkages and congruence between Tom Campbell's model of reality which is here (viewtopic.php?f=220&t=7777) and in addition, read this (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7878) and then read the full model on Tom's Wiki which is here http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/Th ... _Link_Page. This will show you that discussion of IUOCs is not leading us away from any special purpose but is rather 'part and parcel' of understanding ourselves and what our purpose is. We are already 'pure consciousness' as our IUOCs. The entropy reduction is a matter of the refinement of that consciousness quality which then accrues to the Whole as the LCS and AUM. Tom just makes available to those who are not mystics an understanding of the same basic version of reality that mystics have been exploring and understanding for millenia. They can understand it, even if they understand it only intellectually. And it does not hurt for a mystic to have access to this more technical and detailed comprehension either. It is just a deeper level of understanding that can clarify uncertainties as having simpler and clearer, entirely rational metaphors.

Ted

Don't get me wrong Ted. I've been listening Tom in youtube and vimeo for last month or two. Hours and hours after hours about MBT and answers to all kinds of different questions. He sure likes to talk ;-) He has answered many questions I have had and I thank him for doing so. MBT is a useful tool. After getting the needed answers I don't personally find any reason to stay wondering all the possible question you can ask about The System . I don't have to know how it works in detail. Dropping ego and fear and living only as a "pure consciousness" doesn't require all that stuff. Mystics say you need to drop all you concepts and beliefs in order to see The Reality as it is. I tend to believe them. MBT is full of concepts or metaphors which can be easily misunderstood.

Tolsku,

You are not getting the point that there are demonstrably no disagreements between Tom's model of reality and what mystics have been reporting for millenia. There is rather a complete congruence. There is only a difference of metaphors which allows a wider audience to understand Tom's metaphors rather than ancient mystical metaphors which are notoriously hard to comprehend. I state this as having come from such a background and being familiar with both metaphorical descriptions of reality. As you state "I tend to believe them", just after having stated "Mystics say you need to drop all you concepts and beliefs in order to see The Reality as it is", I suggest that you re examine your statements for self contradiction and your own problems with beliefs as opposed to rejecting statements by someone who knows directly. At least recognize your own contradictions.

Ted

I tend to believe Tom too. I'm not saying that there are disagreements. And I have ego and fear and beliefs I should drop. I don't believe it happens by contenplating LCS, IUOC, RWWs etc. And I may be wrong.

All that I am trying to do here, with you specifically, is to point out something which I think might be useful to you. You are one of a few that makes reference to mysticism and what mystics had said. Knowing something about that approach to understanding, I attempt to show you that it is fully in line with what Tom has to say, just more simply described by Tom with metaphors that are more readily understood without the long 'apprenticeship' typical of the mystical path to knowledge. Accept or reject the information as you please. I just suggest that you do not reject it out of hand on a self contradictory basis.

Ted