[ivox3]

I can tell you this Tom, .... the dreaming self is quite convinced that the waking self is the one who is in a dream.

[Thomas An.]

You are confusing the "virtual" universe (say the 3d datapoints collected by your mind) with the actual universe. Then you are trying to argue that once this virtual image is gone the actual universe must be gone too.

Strictly I'm not confusing this but you're first* assuming there is a real universe and then you invent a virtual universe. Contrary I do not assume any of them but I call my perception is my reality, it's not possible to talk beyond it, it would be dreaming then...

Do you really have a point though ? You seem to be running in circles.

About the "virtual" universe. It is not really an invention. The collective archive of all your sensory (your memories) are what constitute your perception of the surroundings. It is the processing of these archives that makes you "aware" of the universe. These memories are your virtual reality. If they were sensed incorrectly or if there was bias during thier collection then your perception of reality becomes incorrect. This is how it is sometimes possible for witnesses in court to swear they recognise someone as the perputrator, becasue they "saw" him/her with their own eyes, but this eyewitness evidense is sometimes proven incorrect (because their emotional state and lighting conditions could have prevented them from making an accurate observation regardless of how confident they sound). This is the case where their perceived reality, is in disagreement with the actual events.

[JDHill]

You mean the biological system (of N) or the the entire universe system ?

No, I was dealing specifically with the process of self-analysis on the part of N -or- the possible lacking of an ability to do so from a logical point other than that which N assumes. When I say 'bugs', I speak not of crashing bugs, but of bugs which produce valid, yet incorrect output...these are always very much worse than the crashing kind.

[tom]

...the best you could ever do is create a very fine illusion of consciousness.

What if human brain is one of them

[ivox3]

I didn't say it wasn't.

[tom]

About the "virtual" universe. It is not really an invention. The collective archive of all your sensory (your memories) are what constitute your perception of the surroundings. It is the processing of these archives that makes you "aware" of the universe.

...ONLY IF the universe is there. However I was trying to tell WHAT IF it-is-not-really-there scenario. You can't free your mind enough with these constraints and this will keep you discovering forever ONLY IN the universe.

Do you really have a point though ?

Point? Ah yes, of course.
Who would believe that he's really living in an unlimited room space?
Wouldn't it be more convincing it was just in his mind...
...and interestingly this mind was not in this space.

[tom]

I didn't say it wasn't.

Yes, as this is a high possibility, we can start suspecting the information we collect about the universe so far.

[ivox3]

You can not find God under a microscope. Design all the fancy and sophisticated measurement tools you like. Observe away, ...till the end of time. If the very energy you seek is the target and subject, ..how would you ever know what you were looking at? To answer your questions about such things doesn't require the accumulation of knowledge and evidence, but rather the stripping away of it.

[tom]

Honestly, I don't believe in god (a controlling mind I mean) as you all know but I highly suspect something parent to this physical space. God or not but it should be there. Because guess from the above universe chart we're fabricating the dreams and maybe we're just the dreams of something else who has never existed.

[Thomas An.]

...It implies there could be a predictable (non-free will) based event/action. Close, ...but no cigar. .. Try again please..........

Well, not entirely true.
If the N-1 entity also has no clue of the origins of the Universe and it constructs and entity N as a means of a computational algorithm to produce solutions at a faster pace, then entity N-1 does not know the outcome either. As a matter of fact it is merely passing the querry along and then awaits for the computation to complete. The computation (being the activities of N, N+1, N+2...)could yield any result, which will then be harvested and taken into account to modify the N-1 awareness.

Again, this is merely a realm of speculation sparked by a comment from JD ... I wasn't really looking forward to expand in this direction of "potential" or "plausible" theories ... especially since we are now venturing more and more into physolophical ground, which can be no different than a religion on its own.

[ivox3]

The word God has become somewhat of a bad word (yes, that sounds funny), ... the word is used as a replacement to the word --- source.


Thomas, ... If you ever start designing your own Universe, ...I think your on the right path.

[tom]

Okay, my final conclusion for today > "I don't find physical universe convincing enough as my perceptional universe doesn't find my dream universe convincing enough."

[Thomas An.]

... However I was trying to tell WHAT IF it-is-not-really-there scenario....

This is a fallacy. You are basically wanting me to expand on a paradox that you just created... and this is also getting us in circles.

Again, for the very last time. Your conscious thought is a product of orderly activity (in this case neural activity). If the universe was not there then your conscience does not have a medium to exist on (no generator means to produce the thoughts).

Also, you cannot assume that it is entirely fictional (including the perception of having a brain that produces thoughts) ... because then you are merely creating a layer of abstraction for no reason. You still feel compelled to act in accoradance to the laws imposed to you by your own imagination. And why does your imagination imposes laws on you in the first place ? Why does it make you susceptible to gravity for example ... ? why doesn't your imagination give you infrared sensory or other arbitrary X-Men like abilities ?

[jdp]

Honestly, I don't believe in god (a controlling mind I mean) as you all know but I highly suspect something parent to this physical space. God or not but it should be there. Because guess from the above universe chart we're fabricating the dreams and maybe we're just the dreams of something else who has never existed.

not exactly. This lead to a paradox loop when you are not existing, or better you can't know whether if you exist or not. this is the descartes "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), which is highly controversial. Briefly if you are the dream of someone else then you know about your existance only because you are thinking of it (senses can be also a false input given by the one is dreaming of you). Now this is an absolute logical jump (don't know how to translate it better) where at the same time you say that you know nothing and you know that you don't know. In other words at the same time you say that nothing can be known for sure but that you are aware of it, which is impossible because even this has to be unknown as a logic consequence.
Even if we assume that this is correct, you can't say that you are not the dream of a third dreaming entity: again a logic loop where you can't say nothing nor taking valid assumption about your current state.

[tom]

Thomas, because we can only master this tree from left to right and since there's nothing yet above physical universe, what you say will always remain "true".

... > Physical Universe > Perceived Universe > Dream Universe > Dreaming in dreaming Universe > ...

However, your conclusion about my perception "fallacy" comes from your initial point. It seems like you're unable to start thinking without having something first. And that" first" for you is always the very physical universe you perceive, so you always try to convince me that even my thoughts are products of this very physical brain. Far beyond, all assumed... I'm trying to think with no initial assumption.

jpd, you explained what I think perfectly and of course these are not conclusions but you go there when you omit something initial, that's all...