Interesting counter-hypothesis from Tom Campbell - Archived Message
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on January 20, 2020, 9:02 pm, in reply to "Re: Way back, I had two tranny friends. Both bio-males, both psychological females. (This was before the"
Admittedly it would be seen as extreme, but - well - it fits in well with observable realities (and it actually resolves - sic! - with great elegance and parsimony the intractable observed anomalies within the current strictly materialist world-view of dominant orthodox science). When Tom is asked the old question: 'If a tree falls in the forest when no-one is watching, does it make a sound?' he answers, un-apologetically - "If no unit of sentience, no mind, is present to observe it, there is no tree; there is no forest. The Larger Consciousness System doesn't waste computational effort on rendering any part of our - wholly virtual - perceived reality when no unit of consciousness is inspecting it." There's more, about the evolved rule-set of our virtual reality: the developed discoveries which we've made, by looking carefully and recording our findings for future reference (key concept!) which make up our sciences such as physics, biology, etc. These previous renderings limit what we can expect to see the next time we look, consistency being a primary essential for it all to work. And an essential element of his theory is that consciousness is the fundamental 'material' with which these processes work in the rendering of what we think of as physical, material reality: When I - or some unit of consciousness, not necessarily just human - takes a look, or a feel, or a smell at the forest, then the LCS renders a tailored, individualised data-stream to that unit, which it promptly interprets as 'woodland'. And woodland, moreover, which tallies as closely as need be to avoid any sense of inconsistency with what I and other units of consciousness have perceived here on previous visits. The 'primacy' of physical reality is thus denied. What matters is the past record of perceptions rendered to units of consciousness on demand (always initially drawn from a random pick of the range of probable possibilities, this being an essentially probablistic reality), and the requirement for subsequent perceptions to tally with that previous rendering; in accordance with the evolved rule-set, of course. Makes your head spin at first! But it stands up well to evidential testing. Some fascinating crucial variants of the classic double-slit experiment are being set up by Tom and colleagues right now to test this hypothesis further. And - crucially - it doesn't say that statements of belief such as Derek's are wrong; they just don't go far enough back into the origins of 'physical, material reality' to get the whole picture. Note that that doesn't disagree with Derek's contention, which is seen as being right as far as it goes, but it doesn't take in the whole larger picture of the nature of reality. The conclusions that he's drawing in this vid, though, still stand up. They don't actually conflict at all with Tom's complete commitment to philosophical idealism. And yes, Derek is right here too: feelings are crucially important in the make-up of reality. But the previously-evolved rule-set still stands. Biologically-determined gender, for example, remains what common-sense says it is. And none of the above conflicts at all with the need to be generously-kindly and loving towards each other, no matter what; in fact that fits perfectly with what I shorthand as 'the Great Purpose of Big Mind': continually lowering the entropy of the whole system, by growing continually towards love... (Phew! Takes a while to get at ease with this strictly scientific resurgence of some very old ideas... ) I quite understand, Ian, if you take this as a cue to expostulate: "WTF has this rigmarole got to do with current gender politics!!"
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Ian M January 20, 2020, 1:14 pm
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Ian M January 20, 2020, 1:21 pm
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Tomski January 20, 2020, 3:44 pm
- They need to use the right arguments.. - Gerard January 20, 2020, 3:46 pm
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Sinister Burt January 20, 2020, 3:50 pm
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Sinister Burt January 20, 2020, 3:57 pm
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Gerard January 20, 2020, 4:18 pm
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Sinister Burt January 20, 2020, 4:44 pm
- Way back, I had two tranny friends. Both bio-males, both psychological females. (This was before the - Rhisiart Gwilym January 20, 2020, 4:46 pm
- Re: Way back, I had two tranny friends. Both bio-males, both psychological females. (This was before the - Ian M January 20, 2020, 7:03 pm
- Interesting counter-hypothesis from Tom Campbell - - Rhisiart Gwilym January 20, 2020, 9:02 pm
- Re: Way back, I had two tranny friends. Both bio-males, both psychological females. (This was before the - johnlilburne January 21, 2020, 2:18 am
- Yes - Keith-264 January 21, 2020, 3:47 am
- Re: Yes - Sinister Burt January 21, 2020, 7:51 am
- Re: Yes - Sinister Burt January 21, 2020, 7:57 am
- Re: Way back, I had two tranny friends. Both bio-males, both psychological females. (This was before the - Jamie January 21, 2020, 8:54 am
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Ian M January 20, 2020, 6:57 pm
- Re: Transgender issues ripping apart UK environmentalists, anarchists, land rights activists... - Jamie January 20, 2020, 4:34 pm
- See A. Vitchek article above - its excellent :) nm - MikeD January 20, 2020, 5:00 pm
|
|