Could we say instead of the body being a mechanism on itself (i know, "we" here think it is); it is rather a sort of interacting filter to operate in realities assuming the body template is somewhat a standard filter being used. Emotional, energetic and physical filters.salvialover24 wrote:Biology needs carbon, which needs matter, which can only be a theological "illusion", provably so once we assume that our brain (or our generalized brain: portion of reality needed to manifest our consciousness for ourselves) works like a digital machine. This is what the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) is supposed to convince you (or any rational agent).

## IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

- HeadFullDMT
**Posts:**58**Joined:**Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:09 am**Location:**Belgium

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

*We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no ones has been. Spiral out, keep going*

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

I love you guys and,

I know you guys need something to talk about but you dont half talk some crap....looooool!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know you guys need something to talk about but you dont half talk some crap....looooool!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by orinn on Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

- salvialover24
**Posts:**1963**Joined:**Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am**Location:**Europa-
**Contact:**

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

Assuming mechanism, bodies does not exist. It is like in a video game, except that below the mechanist substitution level, the apparent bodies are emerging from a statistic on infinities of computations. This is confirmed by the existence of the quantum weirdness. Then you can see the brain as a filter indeed, making it possible for a consciousness to manifest itself relatively to some more probable environment/computation/universal-number. The consciousness itself is elsewhere, as far as we can say that it is somewhere (like number, consciousness is not of the type of thing capable to be localized, but its manifestation can be relatively localized).HeadFullDMT wrote:Could we say instead of the body being a mechanism on itself (i know, "we" here think it is); it is rather a sort of interacting filter to operate in realities assuming the body template is somewhat a standard filter being used. Emotional, energetic and physical filters.salvialover24 wrote:Biology needs carbon, which needs matter, which can only be a theological "illusion", provably so once we assume that our brain (or our generalized brain: portion of reality needed to manifest our consciousness for ourselves) works like a digital machine. This is what the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) is supposed to convince you (or any rational agent).

Many believe that mechanism is compatible with materialism, but that is not the case. They are opposite. If we are machine, we are already in a "digital matrix". Again, I am not saying that we are in such a matrix, but I do say that IF we are machine, then we have to be already in a digital matrix, and the physical reality is a secondary high level description of a "deeper" (arithmetical) reality. Aristotle would be wrong, and Pythagorus, and the (neo)platonists would be right. Of course this is the opposite of the widespread current conception of reality, for both laymen and experts.

I hope salvia can help people to take some distance with physicalism and the notion of primary matter.

- burningmouth
**Posts:**1634**Joined:**Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm-
**Contact:**

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

Where did the arithmetical reality come from? Is it eternal?salvialover24 wrote: ...the physical reality is a secondary high level description of a "deeper" (arithmetical) reality...

- salvialover24
**Posts:**1963**Joined:**Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am**Location:**Europa-
**Contact:**

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

Nice pic, orinn! The world would be a better place if we could advertise salvia like that, and buy salvia at the next gas station, for example

And good question, burning. I would not say that the arithmetical reality is eternal, because that would assume a sort of (infinite) time. I would say that the arithmetical reality, or truth, is atemporal. Out of time and space. It does not make sense to consider that "2+2=4" depends on time. The nature of such a dependence would assume something more atemporal than numbers, and this hardly exists. Eventually with mechanism it is time which emerges from the arithmetical reality, from the points of view of the persons supported by the computations (the computations "live" naturally in arithmetic).

And where does the arithmetical reality comes from? Well we don't know, but again, assuming mechanism, we can explain why we cannot know that. The numbers are a necessary mystery, and we cannot phantom it entirely. So elementary arithmetic is a good place to start. In logic we can show that we cannot recover the natural numbers from anything simpler. So if we want them (as a mechanist will want) we have to postulate them. Of course comp might be false, and my answer is only conditioned to the comp postulate, to be clear.

And good question, burning. I would not say that the arithmetical reality is eternal, because that would assume a sort of (infinite) time. I would say that the arithmetical reality, or truth, is atemporal. Out of time and space. It does not make sense to consider that "2+2=4" depends on time. The nature of such a dependence would assume something more atemporal than numbers, and this hardly exists. Eventually with mechanism it is time which emerges from the arithmetical reality, from the points of view of the persons supported by the computations (the computations "live" naturally in arithmetic).

And where does the arithmetical reality comes from? Well we don't know, but again, assuming mechanism, we can explain why we cannot know that. The numbers are a necessary mystery, and we cannot phantom it entirely. So elementary arithmetic is a good place to start. In logic we can show that we cannot recover the natural numbers from anything simpler. So if we want them (as a mechanist will want) we have to postulate them. Of course comp might be false, and my answer is only conditioned to the comp postulate, to be clear.

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

salvialover24 wrote:Nice pic, orinn! The world would be a better place if we could advertise salvia like that, and buy salvia at the next gas station, for example

And good question, burning. I would not say that the arithmetical reality is eternal, because that would assume a sort of (infinite) time. I would say that the arithmetical reality, or truth, is atemporal. Out of time and space. It does not make sense to consider that "2+2=4" depends on time. The nature of such a dependence would assume something more atemporal than numbers, and this hardly exists. Eventually with mechanism it is time which emerges from the arithmetical reality, from the points of view of the persons supported by the computations (the computations "live" naturally in arithmetic).

And where does the arithmetical reality comes from? Well we don't know, but again, assuming mechanism, we can explain why we cannot know that. The numbers are a necessary mystery, and we cannot phantom it entirely. So elementary arithmetic is a good place to start. In logic we can show that we cannot recover the natural numbers from anything simpler. So if we want them (as a mechanist will want) we have to postulate them. Of course comp might be false, and my answer is only conditioned to the comp postulate, to be clear.

I understand where you are coming from SL...........nice post.......so...what the heck is Time? It seems to be glue of sorts or matrix we are stuck in, hard to step outside of it as well.

" I would not say that the arithmetical reality is eternal, because that would assume a sort of (infinite) time."

hmmm why not?.......

Something we are "IN" appears to be infinite???? At least when I "think" about it.......and then my biosoftware fails

" Its turtles eating saliva leaves all the way down"

or the Comp1 makes the comp2 makes the comp3 makes the comp 4 haha!!

- salvialover24
**Posts:**1963**Joined:**Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am**Location:**Europa-
**Contact:**

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

Whaaa... what a crazily beautiful pic and plant! I almost recognize the lady

Yes, something we are "IN" is infinite, IF we are finite. Even just locally finite.

With comp we don't need turtles all the way down (despite imagining them eating salvia leaves makes the picture very pretty (but less than the one above!)).

We don't need turtles all the way down because we *start* from zero, with comp, and then the successor of zero (1), and the successor of the successor of zero (2), etc.

With addition and multiplication, that is already "Turing universal", and the relations between numbers defines a space of all possible dreams, including the sharable one, and this makes possible, well, not to get turtles eating salvia all the way down, but still turtles eating salvia all the way up

And then, we, the dreamy self-aware creatures-persons, are living on the limit border of the whole construction, (by first person indeterminacy) so that we will interpret such "all the way up" as an "all the way down", so yes, from the first person perspective, there is probably no bottom (if we are finite, or machines, numbers, ...). It is quite like the Mandelbrot set.

Yes, something we are "IN" is infinite, IF we are finite. Even just locally finite.

With comp we don't need turtles all the way down (despite imagining them eating salvia leaves makes the picture very pretty (but less than the one above!)).

We don't need turtles all the way down because we *start* from zero, with comp, and then the successor of zero (1), and the successor of the successor of zero (2), etc.

With addition and multiplication, that is already "Turing universal", and the relations between numbers defines a space of all possible dreams, including the sharable one, and this makes possible, well, not to get turtles eating salvia all the way down, but still turtles eating salvia all the way up

And then, we, the dreamy self-aware creatures-persons, are living on the limit border of the whole construction, (by first person indeterminacy) so that we will interpret such "all the way up" as an "all the way down", so yes, from the first person perspective, there is probably no bottom (if we are finite, or machines, numbers, ...). It is quite like the Mandelbrot set.

- HeadFullDMT
**Posts:**58**Joined:**Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:09 am**Location:**Belgium

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

LOL Orinn.

*We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no ones has been. Spiral out, keep going*

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

whoah, hot hot hot...i'm in love!

- HeadFullDMT
**Posts:**58**Joined:**Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:09 am**Location:**Belgium

### Re: IT'S THE CLONES!!! THE CLONES!!!

After reading your post like 10 times i finally understood itsalvialover24 wrote: And then, we, the dreamy self-aware creatures-persons, are living on the limit border of the whole construction, (by first person indeterminacy) so that we will interpret such "all the way up" as an "all the way down", so yes, from the first person perspective, there is probably no bottom (if we are finite, or machines, numbers, ...). It is quite like the Mandelbrot set.

Interpretation must be a way of sending information back and forth or up and down. I wonder if dreams are up or down? More like second person view to me.

*We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no ones has been. Spiral out, keep going*