Only That Which Came About By Itself Is Real

[desiresjab]

A simulation is also a manifestation of consciousness.

[desiresjab]

A simulation is also a manifestation of consciousness.

I do not know the roots of manifestation, but the first three letters are provocative.

[desiresjab]

Not much to say right now. Working.

[YesNo]

A simulation is also a manifestation of consciousness.

Yes, it is.

I picked up Martin Buber's "I and Thou" at Hooked on Books in Colorado Springs. I don't understand it, but some parts seem to be true. The "I-It" relationship would be what we have with mathematics and hence more primitive than the "I-Thou" relationship. I'm trying to fit these ideas into the ideas we are discussing in this thread.

Here's a quote: "All real living is meeting." So, the "I-Thou" relationship is not one-way, but requires a two-way meeting for it to happen.

The I-It is also lived only in the past. The I-Thou in the present.

If everything is a manifestation of consciousness as I am trying to argue then the mystical, advanced methods would involve meetings not measurements. Measurements lead to theories and simulations which generate predictions about the future.

[desiresjab]

posted in the wrong thread! Sorry.

[desiresjab]

It is a great deal more fun to approach these big questions in poetry and fiction. Being a created being feels safer to me than being an accident of nature. A creator could always have empathy, provide for our consciousness after death, send us to an afterlife. It is much less believable that random forces of nature put together all of this and an afterlife. A creator is not necessary for an afterlife, though. It could happen without one.

The thing about an advanced creator is I believe it would not make throwaways. Like gold, the important aspect of us, our consciousness, would be recycled, subsumed, reabsorbed, for lack of better terms, if there is a creator, I believe.

Individually, I do not know if I am cosmically significant, but some of my "parts" might be universal. That is at the least what one hopes for. There is no proof, or anything like a proof. Yet I do not suppose an afterlife is any more miraculous than a life. Do you?

[desiresjab]

I am confused lately, making a lot of duplicate posts and such. Alzheimer's?

[desiresjab]

I fear that choice making may be another of what you call a correlate and I would probably have called an artifact.

And your theoretical human being that has just enough choice to give him free will within constraints, sounds like he falls between two notions, too, though you seem to object that chaos lies somewhere between randomness and determinism. Not so much an objection as a distinction. With chaos theory it may be that it contains just enough determinism to make it useful.

I will not try to explain where I was wrong until you read the book, Yes/No. The dynamical systems studied by Chaos theory are fully deterministic systems which are nonetheless not prdictable beyond a short range. I need to brush up on the theory myself. Some of that will happen when you read the book and I fetch my own copy out of storage.

[YesNo]

I agree that an afterlife is no more miraculous than a life. We just take our lives for granted.

[desiresjab]

My reasons for believing in an afterlife seem to be nothing more than an enlargement of Gauss's idea that if there were no afterlife it would be too wasteful. Typical Gauss, terse and direct. He may have hit it, though.