You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If the world consists of relatively simple physical laws that allows huge amounts of complexity and there was a constrained amount of information that could be collected and reflected upon at any local region of space-time, then this would sufficiently explain the boundaries of personal experience.
The "personal experience" in this broader sense would be a measure of the total information about the environment outside some boundary seen from within the boundary. To model subjective notions of personal experience, one can coarse-grain the observer and examine the total information about the environment at different resolutions.
Notice that Analytic Idealism only talks about seeing the environment through the boundary, without assigning a physical measure to this quality. I believe this is a conceptual mistake, e.g. due to attributing "sensor" and "actuator" qualities to material objects. To give meaning to sensors and actuators, we imagine prepared configurations to erase history such that the future causal processes can be used to track the information from an original source. This is Platonic biased. There are examples where the environment acts as an agent, e.g. gradual increase of consciousness over time, which is the Seshatic analogue.
The point is to remove the bias of a particular boundary of observation, while preserving the ability to make such boundary choices over an underlying model of physical reality. The boundary choice is not part of the model, hence there is a form of dualism. Yet, this dualism is slightly biased toward Physicalism as the ground of truth.
Suggestions for reducing this family of language biases to Seshatism vs Platonism:
The idea is to augment Analytic Idealism as a surface language with an underlying model of Physicalism.
(Physicalism, Analytic Idealism) = Joker Physicalism
This idea is based on the following argument:
If the world consists of relatively simple physical laws that allows huge amounts of complexity and there was a constrained amount of information that could be collected and reflected upon at any local region of space-time, then this would sufficiently explain the boundaries of personal experience.
The "personal experience" in this broader sense would be a measure of the total information about the environment outside some boundary seen from within the boundary. To model subjective notions of personal experience, one can coarse-grain the observer and examine the total information about the environment at different resolutions.
Notice that Analytic Idealism only talks about seeing the environment through the boundary, without assigning a physical measure to this quality. I believe this is a conceptual mistake, e.g. due to attributing "sensor" and "actuator" qualities to material objects. To give meaning to sensors and actuators, we imagine prepared configurations to erase history such that the future causal processes can be used to track the information from an original source. This is Platonic biased. There are examples where the environment acts as an agent, e.g. gradual increase of consciousness over time, which is the Seshatic analogue.
The point is to remove the bias of a particular boundary of observation, while preserving the ability to make such boundary choices over an underlying model of physical reality. The boundary choice is not part of the model, hence there is a form of dualism. Yet, this dualism is slightly biased toward Physicalism as the ground of truth.
Suggestions for reducing this family of language biases to Seshatism vs Platonism:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: