Tom Campbell and his view of virtual reality and information

[Ben Iscatus]

But aren't Eugene and Santeri saying that manifested reality is analogue, not digital?

[Brad Walker]

Yes, that's why I posted. What's analog at our macroscopic observational scale, if quantized in all dimensions, is actually discrete/digital.

[SanteriSatama]

Yes, that's why I posted. What's analog at our macroscopic observational scale, if quantized in all dimensions, is actually discrete/digital.

Zeno's paradoxes.

[Brad Walker]

Zeno's paradoxes.

Falsifiable?

[SanteriSatama]

Zeno's paradoxes.

Falsifiable?

Math.

[Brad Walker]

Math.

Link or write a peer-reviewed paper, please. AFAIK it's an open question in physics.

[profoundnature]

I'm not sure that Tom Campbell's views are being represented with complete accuracy here. Admittedly, a lot of his content is presented in informal talks so I wouldn't be surprised if some of his content were a bit sloppy in some places, but I'd like to see an example of where exactly he says that consciousness is made out of information/data or that there is nothing more to consciousness than information.

My understanding is that he takes consciousness as fundamental and then uses the virtual reality metaphor to explain how consciousness arises as various informational systems ("reality frames"). So consciousness, which he says is "non-physical" from the perspective of the "physical", i.e. the reality frame (aka virtual reality) that you are currently in (i.e. this universe), is the "stuff" that everything is made of ultimately.

It's been a while since I've been into his content and admittedly most of what I have seen has been his YouTube videos and presentations, so it is difficult to whip up some good examples to reference quickly.
In a quick attempt to pull something from his book (which I haven't read yet):
On page 640, he talks about a non-physical system that then "becomes a self-modifying, complex, informational medium." So, here non-physical consciousness then becomes an informational system, but that isn't the same as saying that consciousness is nothing more than information.

Later on the page, "Reality [i.e. the informational system] must be experienced by consciousness" (emphasis added).

Further down the page, he talks about the distinction between knowledge and wisdom. Whereas knowledge is merely on the level of information, he clarifies that, "In addition to knowledge, wisdom requires Big Picture understanding and caring at a deep level - both are attributes of experience and being rather than attributes of information." So here he is contrasting the deeper level that he often refers to as the "being level" (the fundamental level of actual consciousness) with the more surface level of information.

I would say that in his view, it isn't information that is conscious, but rather consciousness experiences information. The LCS is a way of talking about the system that consciousness arises as, experiencing itself. But even if this weren't the exact way to characterize his views, I still find his material very helpful and useful for understanding an idealist worldview. Considering how ambitious his project is, I wouldn't be surprised if he is off in some places (he admits that to probably be the case himself as well), but I still think he has lots of helpful content in general.

Also, my understanding of his views of the afterlife is that they are very compatible with a reincarnation model. I haven't seen him anywhere say that the Individuated Unit of Consciousness merely dissolves at death (the avatar dissolves yes, but not necessarily your individuated, personal existence). I remember a lot of content where he talks about experiencing a life-review after death and then reincarnating into another reality frame and stuff like that.

[profoundnature]

Another quick example, from his scientific paper:

"In this theory, the consciousness of the players form the screen on which reality is rendered."

Consciousness is the screen on which reality (the information system) is rendered.

[SanteriSatama]

Link or write a peer-reviewed paper, please.

Sorry, no. I don't play that game. I don't take physicalism as any sort of authority, and math and rest of philosophy is open to rational inquiry where and when ever without arguments from authority.