That does sound like reasonable advice… however I now have empirical evidence for Dust Theory. Still, most of the horrible problems in it seem to have been defused.
That doesn’t even remotely meet the bar for ‘evidence’ from my standpoint. At best, you could say that it’s a tack-on to the original idea to make it match reality better.
Put another way, it’s not evidence that makes the idea more likely, it’s an addition that increases the complexity yet still leaves you in a state where there are no observables to test or falsify anything.
Why do we dream? Because a large amount of conscious beings join the measure of beings who can. That’s why we find ourselves as pre-singularity humans. I’d say that’s empirical evidence.
Sorry, but evidence doesn’t really work that way. Even if we allow it, it is exceptionally weak evidence, and not enough to distinguish ‘dust theory’ from any other of the countless ideas in that same category. Again, it looks to me like a tack-on to the original idea that is needed simply to make the idea compatible with existing evidence.
As for why we dream, it’s actually because of particles, forces, and biochemistry. A mundane explanation for a mundane process. No group hive mind of spirit energy or “measure of beings” required.
Even if we allow it, it is exceptionally weak evidence, and not enough to distinguish ‘dust theory’ from any other of the countless ideas in that same category.
Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to the scenario I described with DT. Do these other ideas predict the same?
As for why we dream, it’s actually because of particles, forces, and biochemistry. A mundane explanation for a mundane process. No group hive mind of spirit energy or “measure of beings” required.
So you are saying that humans or humanlike minds are the most common type of consciousness that is mathematically possible?
Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to the scenario I described with DT. Do these other ideas predict the same?
“Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to demonstrate the existence of a dream realm.”
“Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to recharge the Earth Spirit that is Mother Gaia.”
“Dreaming is a very specific process by which Wyvren allows us to communicate with Legends.”
So you are saying that humans or humanlike minds are the most common type of consciousness that is mathematically possible?
I have literally no idea how you could possibly draw that conclusion from the statement that dreaming has a mundane physics-based explanation. The two things aren’t even remotely related.
“Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to demonstrate the existence of a dream realm.”
“Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to recharge the Earth Spirit that is Mother Gaia.”
“Dreaming is a very specific process by which Wyvren allows us to communicate with Legends.”
Dust Theory is a coherent philosophical idea that has certain logical arguments to be made for it based off of our scientific knowledge of minds and quantum theory.
I have literally no idea how you could possibly draw that conclusion from the statement that dreaming has a mundane physics-based explanation. The two things aren’t even remotely related.
No, they aren’t. Of course dreaming has a mundane physics-based explanation; Dust Theory predicts that as well. We just find ourselves in a universe where dreaming exists.
That does sound like reasonable advice… however I now have empirical evidence for Dust Theory. Still, most of the horrible problems in it seem to have been defused.
What is your empirical evidence for dust theory?
Point 2: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mgd/the_consequences_of_dust_theory/ck0q
That doesn’t even remotely meet the bar for ‘evidence’ from my standpoint. At best, you could say that it’s a tack-on to the original idea to make it match reality better.
Put another way, it’s not evidence that makes the idea more likely, it’s an addition that increases the complexity yet still leaves you in a state where there are no observables to test or falsify anything.
In common terms, that’s called a ‘net loss’.
Why do we dream? Because a large amount of conscious beings join the measure of beings who can. That’s why we find ourselves as pre-singularity humans. I’d say that’s empirical evidence.
Sorry, but evidence doesn’t really work that way. Even if we allow it, it is exceptionally weak evidence, and not enough to distinguish ‘dust theory’ from any other of the countless ideas in that same category. Again, it looks to me like a tack-on to the original idea that is needed simply to make the idea compatible with existing evidence.
As for why we dream, it’s actually because of particles, forces, and biochemistry. A mundane explanation for a mundane process. No group hive mind of spirit energy or “measure of beings” required.
Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to the scenario I described with DT. Do these other ideas predict the same?
So you are saying that humans or humanlike minds are the most common type of consciousness that is mathematically possible?
“Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to demonstrate the existence of a dream realm.”
“Dreaming is a very specific process that seems optimized to recharge the Earth Spirit that is Mother Gaia.”
“Dreaming is a very specific process by which Wyvren allows us to communicate with Legends.”
I have literally no idea how you could possibly draw that conclusion from the statement that dreaming has a mundane physics-based explanation. The two things aren’t even remotely related.
Dust Theory is a coherent philosophical idea that has certain logical arguments to be made for it based off of our scientific knowledge of minds and quantum theory.
No, they aren’t. Of course dreaming has a mundane physics-based explanation; Dust Theory predicts that as well. We just find ourselves in a universe where dreaming exists.