Let's assume that consciousness originates elsewhere, and something within us functions as a receiver of it. What exactly is it, and would it be possible to be replicated? Is it something within the brain, or a combination of things within a living being that enables consciousness?

Completely different from artificial intelligence, would it be possible to develop a suitable avatar and crack the code to what enables consciousness within a living thing?

I think of this a little differently. When you say "within us", by "us" do you mean our avatar, or as Morpheus called it, our residual self image? Because to me, our consciousness IS "us". As an analogy, your avatar in a VR isn't receiving information from you - you're not telling it what to do. You're telling the gaming system what you want your avatar to do and the gaming system translates that to motions and the like performed by the avatar. Why do we even have a brain in this apparent physical reality? Because it is convincing. Same reason your VR avatar has feet - otherwise it would seem pretty weird that it could move around. The brain is part of the VR - a complex data structure that facilitates the apparent hardness and objectiveness of our VR.

How would your question about replication change based on the above?

Is it a question like "is it possible to switch avatars?" There is some anecdotal evidence of that - reports of possessions, multiple personality disorder, and the like.

Is it a question like "is it possible to control two avatars at once?" Same answer - perhaps that's what multiple personality disorder is.

In a computational system, each computation element does only one thing at a time. Even with a massively parallel processing system, each processing element only does one thing at a time. The OS might time slice the focus of that element - like spend a hundred cycles on the spreadsheet, then spend a hundred cycles on the song that is playing, then spend a hundred cycles updating the clock, and so on. Our true consciousness may be the same way - it can only focus on one thing at a time - this personality or that one. Alternatively, it could duplicate itself with each instance of the consciousness controlling a different "avatar". Not sure we could really tell the difference. But in the model, it is certainly possible.

Sorry for the diversion into computer-speak. Our reality may be nothing like a Von Neumann machine. But some of these concepts may still apply no matter what is under the covers.

Yeah good question. I've always thought of it this way... If the handful of mud doesn't have sufficient receptors to sense and respond, and doesn't have sufficient "wiring" to grow, there would be little use in me using it as an avatar in a learning environment - I might as well just communicate directly with other consciousnesses. But if it has that complexity, it makes it possible and believable to be an active participant in the RLL (reality learning lab - this life). Does it have to be biological? I don't think so. I wonder if a sufficiently complex non-biological entity, like an AI, existed, might I as a pure consciousness, decide to occupy it and carry out a life on earth. Maybe the only reason we haven't is because we haven't developed the artificial complexity yet. Although I've read that the internet is now about as complex as a human brain, so maybe it's ready to accept a consciousness connection from the deeper reality. What do you think?

It's very interesting the way you describe consciousness here - like it's a liquid that you can pour into a vessel of any capacity. I've never thought of it that way. I tend to believe in reincarnation, or a continuity of consciousness, which, to me, feels like the "amount" of each individuated consciousness is somehow somewhat fixed. But that may be a simplistic way of looking at it, based on "fixed" capacity assumptions that I learned from the RLL, right? Like, if I were to reincarnate into a vessel that had 100x the neurological capacity of the human brain, would "I" be wasting all of that capacity because I haven't really grown into it yet?



I think maybe both. I feel like the wisdom that you acquire, the EQ, the spirituality, the value system is something that is retained permanently in your evolving consciousness. It's the facts and memories that are retained in the RLL. Personality might be shaped by all of that information and experience.

Re. the immobile machine, as long as it has sensory inputs, I think it can have a pretty full experience. Of course, robots can move, a network of nanobots can go places a human can't, and isn't the experience of motion simply processing of information too?

Great discussion, Jon!

100% agree. Like the Pareto Principle, however, I feel like we can only focus on the level of reality/simulation that is most immediate, most relevant. We have no business digging deeper until we at least understand RLL, and then maybe one level deeper.