Return Home
It is currently Tue May 21, 2024 1:54 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:21 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:25 am
Posts: 1
Before sentient life was established in this VR (a process taking hundreds of millions of years post Big Bang), and therefore before FWAUs could inhabit it, how did the waves of probabilities collapse to form the matter necessary to subsequently 'house' that sentient life?

In other words, if there was no conscious awareness able to log on to this VR for a long period of time (in lieu of there being life to inhabit as FWAUs) how did the taking of measurements required to render the VR get started?? It seems chicken and egg to me.

Without conscious awareness there can be no measurements / rendering. Without measurements / rendering there can be no matter with which to create / support life? Did the VR only exist as a PMR once FWAUs logged on? If so, what was going on for those hundreds of millions of years before??

An alternative is that consciousness pervades everything and that measurements were taken before FWAUs logged in (maybe by the LCS). But that would require a hell of a lot of processing power (and i think contradicts TC's point on the need for efficiency).

Thanks!


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:23 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7222
Location: Ocala, FL
Time is an artifact of consciousness and was in effect before the VRs were created. Before the VRs IOUCs communicated in a sort of chat room. The chat room allowed some consciousness evolution but the ability to evolve was limited. Therefore the PMRs were created and may be the origin of the Garden of Eden story.

The PMRs didn't evolve in real time, and there were probably many PMRs started to see which combinations of conditions would lead to life evolving. When a complicated enough character evolved, with enough decision space to be interesting, then IOUCs logged on, (got the data stream.)

Personally, I wonder if the Chicxulub impactor, that ended the reign of the dinosaurs, wasn't an interference from the LCS to move things along to see if a more complicated life form would evolve.

Digital realities don't take that much processing power. A physical reality would be much slower as all events would have to play out in real time and would take huge amounts of processing power.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2021 6:26 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 47
I sort of think of it, as an analogy, as the difference between running a command line script - a barebones interface, all calculations - versus playing a video game.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 456
The PMRs didn't evolve in real time, and there were probably many PMRs started to see which combinations of conditions would lead to life evolving. When a complicated enough character evolved, with enough decision space to be interesting, then IOUCs logged on, (got the data stream.)
I've never found this view convincing. Bacteria are said to be conscious and are not complicated, represent 99% of all life, and in the MBT model must have IUOCs logged on to them. So "interesting" is apparently not relevant.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 8:43 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7222
Location: Ocala, FL
Bacteria are not conscious under MBT guidelines.

◙ enough memory to define change, to differentiate one state from another
◙ enough processing capability to learn from experience
◙ enough awareness of self to have a finite decision space that can be utilized by a free will, and some way to transfer energy and information between itself and its environment (an ability to intentionally interact with its inside and outside environment.)

http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewto ... e+criteria

Bacteria are indeed a major life form – 13% of everything – but plants overshadow everything, representing 82% of all living matter. All other creatures, from insects to fungi, to fish and animals, make up just 5% of the world's biomass.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:02 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 456
Linda,
Tom Campbell says bacteria have decision space, therefore must be conscious. (I believe he later backtracked a bit and said in the early days they were algorithmic - but did not stay that way. Very odd.)

"You and your intestinal bacteria must realize that there are some things that you will never fully appreciate because they are, and will always be, beyond your limited reach. "(My Big Toe, P240). (He mentions intestinal bacteria quite a bit in his book.)

"Even the bacteria in the soil or on the surface and on the tree, makes conscious decisions all the time. They are subject to the rule set but also have a decision space that varies considerably with the nature of just what they are. A bacterium has very little decision space but it does choose simple things like, move left versus right, ingest that particle of nutrient material or not." (Ted Vollers 29 December 2012)

When I said that bacteria are 99% of everything, I obviously meant not by biomass but by numbers. If each bacterium is a conscious unit with decision space, that's what counts.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2022 9:00 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7222
Location: Ocala, FL
Tom uses bacteria in an example in a humorous way, but in no way does he mean that bacteria are conscious. He is using bacteria, with an IQ of 200, to illustrate how our decision space is limited to what we know. And we have no idea what is outside our ability to know. But obviously there are no bacteria with an IQ of 200.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N66kGXX ... omCampbell

And I have to disagree with Ted here. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that bacteria are making conscious decisions rather than responding to environmental stresses.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2022 1:31 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 456
Disagree with Ted?! Good grief!
Indeed, TC does say that bacteria make conscious choices (like moving towards the light or towards food). What about this on Page 284 of Book 1:

"A complete set of the possible forms that sentient life could take are beyond our knowing. AUM is one member of that set and we are another. Bacteria and flat worms are two more."

He excludes plants because, being a physicist, not a biologist, he thinks they don't make choices (though modern research shows that, like bacteria, they react to stimuli and do a lot else, e.g. produce chemicals to deter insect attacks and use their roots to form relationships with fungi).


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2022 6:04 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1644
It may be impossible(from an individuated human consciousness) to prove one way or another that bacteria and plants are making conscious choices, but there is evidence to suggest they do. Bacteria just make very small choices and plants make their choices, the results of which manifest very slowly.

I don’t think that it matters if those choices are as a result of environmental pressures or not. Most of the choices that humans make are due to environmental pressures. If there were no environmental pressure there would be little reason to make a choice. Everything you perceive outside of yourself is part of your external environment including other humans. If you make a choice based on that external environment, or for that matter, your internal environment, then you made a choice because of environmental pressure.

It may be impossible(from an individuated human consciousness) to prove one way or another that others(humans or otherwise) are making conscious choices, but there is evidence to suggest they do.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:07 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7222
Location: Ocala, FL
"A complete set of the possible forms that sentient life could take are beyond our knowing. AUM is one member of that set and we are another. Bacteria and flat worms are two more."
Could take not does take. I think a lot of research would have to be done before anyone could say that bacteria have consciousness. At any rate it isn't a hill I want to die on.
Most of the choices that humans make are due to environmental pressures.
That is the whole point of the PMRs. Otherwise consciousness would have just stayed in the chat rooms.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2022 3:24 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1644
That is the whole point of the PMRs. Otherwise consciousness would have just stayed in the chat rooms.
Roger that GhostRider. ;)


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:48 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:16 pm
Posts: 456
Could take not does take. I think a lot of research would have to be done before anyone could say that bacteria have consciousness. At any rate it isn't a hill I want to die on.
You are misunderstanding the context. "Could take" refers to all the myriad possibilities; the examples given are supposed to be actual. "AUM" and "us" are obviously "actual" examples. So are bacteria.

I think you should apply your mind to this issue and not just blindly accept the MBT model. Be skeptical! Can you imagine five nonillion IOUCS each "logging on" to a single bacterium? Can you not see how profoundly uninteresting that would be? Does this not make the model seem rather silly?


Top
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:09 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Posts: 1644
vzam wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 10:48 am
Could take not does take. I think a lot of research would have to be done before anyone could say that bacteria have consciousness. At any rate it isn't a hill I want to die on.
You are misunderstanding the context. "Could take" refers to all the myriad possibilities; the examples given are supposed to be actual. "AUM" and "us" are obviously "actual" examples. So are bacteria.

I think you should apply your mind to this issue and not just blindly accept the MBT model. Be skeptical! Can you imagine five nonillion IOUCS each "logging on" to a single bacterium? Can you not see how profoundly uninteresting that would be? Does this not make the model seem rather silly?
So, DATA by itself has no meaning. According to MBT you get a DATA stream, NOT NOT NOT!!! An information stream.

You, the IUOC is/are the interpreter. For example YOU assign meaning to the DATA thus creating Meaning(information).

You cannot interpret your DATA stream incorrectly for it defines your reality.

Your reality IS Your reality. There is no wrong or misunderstanding about it.

There is only a focused understanding vs an expanded understanding, or limited vs less limited understanding. There is no such thing as a correct understanding and an incorrect understanding.

All interpretations are valid and potentially useful.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited