Tom Campbell

[PauliEffect]

I think that you miss the decisive point here:

The physical world is real but the underlying reality is the mind (also real) which creates the physical. There would be nothing we call physical without the mind / consciousness observing and creating it (probably by observing). That's the mystical standpoint. That's also TC's standpoint.

No.

That's not TC's standpoint, as I get it.

At least not in his book MBT. TC's standpoint seems to be that the physical is a pure simulation
of software, and that software is made out of consciousness only. It's not about observation.

The physical is a mere computer simulation. The only real thing is the nonphysical.

Unless I've read MBT by using my *sshole, I claim that I'm right and you're wrong.

[Sinera]

Do you take software literally? Software is more like a metaphor for the workings of conciousness. This is the way TC describes his model. He's a physicist, after all. A tekkie, so to speak.

So it is: Consciousness (mind) = Software => (creating) matter

Matter in 3D is a program written (created) by the 'software' (mind). That is why we are in a kind of multi-player software game.

In order to see this you must give up the reductionist viewpoint and look at it from a holistic perspective. You will see that matter has/is consciousness too, as it is consciousness working within the whole system / software / matrix / holographic projection / the field / god's dream / indira's net, etc...

In this holistic view, the "matrix" (Planck) or the "field" (Einstein: "the field is the only reality") or the "computer (software)" (TC) is the same concept. The "concsious field" of which we are also a part of, generates matter, thus matter is the result, its particles interacting and vibrating within forces that reveal consciousness / conscious programming (=software).

I think that I understand your problem because it is in words chosen. TC and others (also Planck) often state "there is no matter". I agree with you that it is an unlucky statement. Because it first separates and then negates one part. There is no separation or negation though!

Of course there "is" matter because matter "is". What we perceive "is". Just what is behind it "mind" as the underlying cause and reality is sth different than we are 'taught in school'.

The clockwork-mechanistic Newtonian universe or (from a philosophical perscpective) the Descartian duality (matter separated from mind/spirit) is the misleading concept. You still think in duality. Try to make the connection and view it holistically.

So they should rather say "matter is not what we think (are taught by this worldview) what it is". In other words: the "illusion" is our concept of matter, not matter itself.

So the way TC and others put it is not a lucky wording. Still, I am certain that they do not mean that 'matter does not exist'. Of course it exists. We perceive and experience and observe it (in a holographic or digital or whatever way, but that does NOT make it UNREAL, it still is real.)

[PauliEffect]

Do you take software literally? Software is more like a metaphor for the workings of conciousness. This is the way TC describes his model.

No.

Software is not a metaphor, from my reading of MBT. Software is literally.

Matter is the result of a Software Simulation, where the Software is Consciousness only. There doesn't exist any matter by itself.

It's literal. No matter. Ever.

Once the experiment with any given physical universe is done, the Software = Consciousness will be used for other purposes. And, as the Software is broken up and put to other use, the "existence" of the physical universe will end, because (according to MBT) there is no physical universe, there is only Consciousness and some small part of it is used to simulated our physical universe, which thus doesn't exist at all in the sense we believe.

Campbell goes as far as making one thought experiment. Assume that your brain is put in a bowl of nutrition in a completely dark room and then you're fed with electrical impulses. You will not be able to know if the physical universe exists or if you're only reacting to signals. Then put your personal Consciousness only, in a nonphysical bowl and feed it signals, you will not be able to know if you're in a nonphysical simulation or if you're in a physical matter universe. That's Campbell's standpoint. We are Consciousness put into a piece of Software and we are only fed signals by that Software. The physical universe doesn't exists other than an illusion created by Software.

So it is: Consciousness (mind) = Software => (creating) matter

No. Nothing is created, as nothing exists. There is only Consciousness in the form of Software. No matter at all exists, according to MBT.

You will see that matter has/is consciousness too. . .

Matter has nothing and is nothing, as it doesn't exist. Matter is only the result of Software, tricking us to perceive something which doesn't exist other than a Software Simulation.

I think that I understand your problem because it is in words chosen. TC and others (also Planck) often state "there is no matter". I agree with you that it is an unlucky statement.

No.

It's not an unlucky statement.

It's a literal statement. It really means, according to Campbell, that matter doesn't exists, never has existed. There is no matter. Once the Software is broken up and used for other purposes, the only thing which may exist is Memory (as a result from the Simulation), which also is pure Consciousness. No Matter has ever existed or will ever exist. There only exists Consciousness in the form of Software to trick us into believing in the illusions of matter-existence.

Then there is the Hardware and the Programmer as well, and both, according to Campbell are also Consciousness. The _only_, really, the only thing ever having existed is Consciousness, nothing else is real, nothing else exists other than in the form of perception of Software Simulations.

So the way TC and others put it is not a lucky wording. Still, I am certain that they do not mean that 'matter does not exist'. Of course it exists.

No.

It does _not_, and I repeat, does _not_ exist. Only our perception of a piece of Software exists. We are put into a piece of program, which to 100 % Simulates the existence of matter. That's the basic for MBT.

There only exists Consciousness.

And yes, I really, really read that in MBT. And I read it over and over again, until it made me puke.

I also stated this in my review. So in order for you to claim the opposite, you really have to erase those many sentences out of MBT for it to become something else.

And...

Here what's bothers me.

Campbell provides no experiences of his own to back up any of his claims.

[CFTraveler]

I guess the question I would pose to you, considering your stance on the words chosen, is, do you think consciousness exists?

[PauliEffect]

I guess the question I would pose to you, considering your stance on the words chosen, is, do you think consciousness exists?

I guess the question is to me?

Well, besides that there doesn't exist any scientific definition on what Consciousness is,
I think it's plausible to think that something like that exists, or at least something,
which produces a result which can be interpreted as being Consciousness, exists.
---

But the questions is perhaps different?

The stuff we think exists, (our opinion on "the stuffs" existence) is based on what? What basis?

The basis is Observation.

We can't say if anything exists or not on itself or how any object is "in itself".
The impossible question to answer is: "What does really exist?"

What we can do is make observations. And to avoid becoming too philosophical
I think we have to go with what's practical. And anyway, I think the existence of
any "Stuff", has to be based on observations, experiences, be it physical matter
or nonphysical reality or any other kind of definition of what is observed.

Regardless if we observe "the thing itself" or just some exterior behaviour, we
can only notice/record what we observe.
---

Someone observes, makes measurement on an atom.

Does the atom exist or is there some kind of "thingie" which just produces
the behaviour which we interpret as being an atom?

We can't know, but we can record our observation, label it, perhaps use
it as a definition in some context, etc.

[CFTraveler]

It was- I thought I wrote " The question I would pose to you, Pauli, is....". I guess I need more coffee. Or some coffee, as I had a rough awakening this morning and haven't yet had my first cup, or breakfast, and am here writing. Lol.

But you answered it adequately enough for me to see what you mean- I think.
If matter's reality as a product of consciousness depends on the reality of consciousness itself, I see why you object to TC's assertions.

[Sinera]

Does the atom exist or is there some kind of "thingie" which just produces the behaviour which we interpret as being an atom?

both, because maybe there's no difference

[PauliEffect]

If matter's reality as a product of consciousness depends on the reality of consciousness itself,
I see why you object to TC's assertions.

Hmm... I'm a little unsure about what to respond. Perhaps you are observing
something I see or something I've missed?


I could give part of my view point. Perhaps I can put it this way:

If nothing else than Consciousness exists, some parts of the physical reality
and also some parts of the nonphysical reality should behave different, in
my opinion.

The only real way for Campbell to move around that obstacle is to claim
that most of the nonphysical reality is a Software Simulation, too.
Specially the parts around Focus 23 and the BSTs must in such a
case be pure AUM Software Simulations.

The real problem then becomes; are we Software Simulations, too?

When a person dies and his consciousness gets stuck in F 23, is that person
just a mere part of the Simulation?

And once the experiment is over, as Campbell claims has happened millions
of times, the Software is scrapped and put to use in other ways. For example
as a completely new and different Simulation as the old one was a dead end.
---

Question is, where does the Software Simulation end?

If someone dies and gets stuck in F 23, that person may stay there a long time,
or perhaps can get released through a retrieval as Monroe's Patrick Case.

But if physical matter reality (PMR) is a Software Simulation, then that simulation
should have ended once the person is dead and the person's consciousness goes
back to the nonphysical, right?

Why doesn't the Software take care of the retrieval in a more simple way? Stuck
persons may be in F 23 for hundreds of years in pain and that doesn't seem to
fill much purpose, does it?

Campbell also claims that the Software has been optimized at least millions of times,
so I would have expected the retrieval to commence much smoother in such cases?

The person stuck in F 23 or F 25 BST doesn't make any sense, unless those places also
are Software Simulations and not the real nonphysical Consciousness.

There is such a high ineffectiveness of the Software that Campbell really should have
a least a tiny explanation to it in MBT, but I couldn't find much of that sort.

[CFTraveler]

I'm going to bookmark this and come back to me when I've read the whole thing- but at face value I'd say the crux of the issue is that it all is a simulation (including the NPMR)- a simulation only in the sense that the sensory information is created by consciousness, and not independently existent.
So it makes it all equally real instead of some of it real and some other parts of it nonreal, provided that reality is assigned by the observer. But this here is my interpretation, and I don't know if it's reflective of TC's theories as proposed in MBT in total.

[PauliEffect]

One minor detail, I don't know if it matters or not right now, but Consciousness,
The Big Computer, the Hardware is digital and uses something similar
to ones and zeros.

Campbell mentions it briefly in a youtube at the original post by the Thread Starter,
around 1:32 - 1:35, and for completeness - the video clip is also here (it's also mentioned in MBT).

Further, the Original Thread starter also noticed that Campbell thinks that
The Big Computer, the Hardware, moves forward at a specific clock speed,
controlled by a Minimum Time Increment. But physical reality ticks by
on a much slower Time Increment, and can also be halted in its execution
by The Big Computer or by The Even Bigger Computer (see MBT), without us noticing it (!).

Just for reference:
My old computer runs at 2.5 GHz (time increment is about half a nano second),
but AUM, Source, The Even Bigger Computer has a much higher clock speed.
---

One reviewer has mentioned that during the mid 1800ies scientists thought the universe
would work like a steam engine. Today, in our time, scientist may compare the universe
to a big computer. In the future something else will be used by scientist as a analogy
for our universe.

Perhaps any TOE will be a child of its time?