[size=130]There exists[/size] [b]an explanatory gap in Fundamentalist Christian thinking when it comes to the question of HOW Christ atoned for the sin of every human being in the span of human existence.
It is difficult from the start to imagine a human dying 2000 years in the past having an experiential relation to, say, a human existing 4000 years in (our!) future. Nevertheless, Fundamentalism takes the connection for granted, holding that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a supernatural and God-ordained “legal tender” saving an individual from God’s wrath upon repentence and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Fundamentalism holds that the “tie” or “connection” between Christ and a human being is symbolic, representing God’s favorable intentions toward a human who accepts the offer of Christian salvation.
But the symbolism does not stop there. The physical blood of Jesus shed upon the cross is believed to be the sacrificial catalyst for atonement, in the sense that the physical blood of Jesus symbolically “washes” the repentant sinner free of sin, through God’s decree that the shedding of Christ’s blood is “punishment served” for all past and present sins before and after conversion (if one repents). One constantly “awash with the blood of Jesus” is spared from eternal damnation in hellfire.[/b]
When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said: “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
(Hebrews 9:19-22 NIV)
(According to the “new doctrine” of the New Testament, sin is forgiven ONLY through the shed blood of Jesus[b]: what this ACTUALLY MEANS is a matter of interpretation, given the problem of attaining Jesus’ actual blood in order to sprinkle it upon humans born thousands of years after the fact)
Might there exist an alternative interpretation of the phrase “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”? Might one interpret “blood” as a mental “blood” that “spurts” from the mind of Christ—with this mental “shedding of blood” being the TRUE catalyst for atonement of sin? Might the physical crucifixion and the physical shedding of Jesus’ physical blood be merely the initiating mechanism that activates the “shedding” of this “mental blood” that atones for the sin of mankind?[/b]
[size=150] Christ The Psychic Doppleganger [/size]
As stated in the ILP thread: The Most Bizarre Version Of Christianity Ever Seen[b], Superchristianity proposes that Christ atoned for the sins of humankind by himself committing the sin of every human being—playing the role of victim and perpetrator within a simulated reality—a “sacrificial dream”—while dying on the cross.
In the sacrificial dream, Christ suffers all the negative physical and mental experiences of every human being, while bearing the physical likeness and intermittently experiencing the personality, desires, and moral weakness of his ‘real world’ twin. Christ intermittently “re-emerges” in his normal persona as an “epiphenomenal observer” and “narrator” of the experiences of the “host”.[/b]
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
(Hebrews 4: 15 NIV)
The Sacrifice Simulation is imposed by God to infuse the negative aspects of God’s omniscient mind with the mind of Christ, and to infuse the mind of Christ into the absurd characters found within God’s omniscient foreknowledge of all events. This gives rise to a theogony in which one man becomes the moral “excuse” that absolves (eventually) “all men”.
I am counted among those
who go down to the pit;
I am like a man without strength.
I am set apart with the dead,
like the slain who lie in the grave,
whom you remember no more,
who are cut off from your care.
You have put me in the lowest pit,
in the darkest depths.
You have taken my companions and loved ones
from me;
the darkness is my closest friend.”
(Psalm 88: 1-9; 15-18)
The Superchristian hypothesis of the mental “pre-enactment” of Jesus Christ of the negative/traumatic experiences of humans existing after the crucifixion and the “re-enactment" of the experiences of humans existing before the crucifixion is called: The First Reverie of Jesus Christ.
[size=95]rev-er-ie or rev-ery \rev- (ә-)rḕ\ n, pl rev-er-ies [F reverie, fr. MF, delirium, fr. resver, rever to wander, be delirious] 1: DAYDREAM 2: the condition of being lost in thought[/size]
[size=150]Making The Case: The Logical Possibility Of The First Reverie[/size]
[size=130]If one believes[/size] [b]in the existence of God, the existence of Jesus Christ, and the atonement of Christ for the sins of the world through the First Reverie—is it possible, in principle, to establish the logical possibility of the First Reverie?
Perhaps. But If one is to convince the skeptic of the logical possibility of the First Reverie, it’s not a bad idea to begin with the concept of isomorphism.[/b]
[size=150] The Concept of Isomorphism [/size]
Isomorphism, as proposed by David J. Chalmers, is a practical consequence of the principle of Organizational Invariance. The principle of Organizational Invariance states that if the causal patterns of a biological brain are duplicated in non-biological material, the non-biological duplicate will yield conscious experiences identical to its template. Many philosophers hold that the causal organization of the brain can in principle be reproduced in non-biological materials such as silicon chips, a sequence of water-pipes, or a set of wind-machines (John Searle, 1980).
The Principle of Organizational Invariance is far from universally accepted. Some have thought it likely that for a system to be conscious it must have the right sort of biochemical makeup; if so, a metallic robot or a silicon-based computer could never have experiences, no matter what its causal organization. Others have conceded that a robot or a computer might be conscious if it were organized appropriately, but have held that it might nevertheless have experiences quite different from the kind that we have.
For example, Block (1980) points out that the functional organization of the brain might be instantiated by the population of China, if they were organized appropriately, and argues that it is bizarre to suppose that this would somehow give rise to a group mind. In a similar way, John Searle (1980) notes that a given organization might be realized by “a sequence of water-pipes, or a set of wind-machines”, but argues that these systems would not be conscious.
The natural reply, however, is that it seems equally counterintuitive that a mass of 10^{11} appropriately organized neurons should give rise to consciousness, and yet it happens. Intuition is unreliable as a guide to empirical possibility, especially where a phenomenon as perplexing as conscious experience is concerned. If a brain can do the job of enabling conscious experience, it is far from obvious why an appropriately organized population, or indeed an appropriate organized set of water-pipes, could not.
Strictly speaking, for the purposes of the invariance principle we must require that for two systems to share their functional organization, they must be in corresponding states at the time in question; if not for this requirement, my sleeping twin might count as sharing my organization, but he certainly does not share my experiences. When two systems share their organization at a fine enough grain (including the requirement that they be in corresponding states), I will say that they are functionally isomorphic systems, or that they are functional isomorphs. The invariance principle holds that any functional isomorph of a conscious system has experiences that are qualitatively identical to those of the original system.
(Chalmers, David J: Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia,
consc.net/papers/qualia.html)
[size=150] Transtemporal Psychic Isomorphism [/size]
[b]One can argue, however, that two systems can be functionally isomorphic without necessarily standing in the same room and functioning simultaneously in corresponding states. All that is required in Chalmers’ requirement for isomorphism is that two systems at some time are in corresponding states.
Chalmers, unfortunately, expresses a reticence toward this type of nonlocal isomorphism:[/b]
There are a few small loopholes that the argument leaves open, but none of the loopholes leads to an attractive position. A loophole is left open for physical isomorphs that differ in their history: perhaps if I was born in the Southern Hemisphere I experience green, whereas a physical twin born in the North would experience red. But [this] hypothesis [is not] very plausible in the first place. It is reasonable that history should affect our qualia by affecting our physical structure, but the history-dependence required above would be much stronger: there would in effect be a “nonlocal” effect of distal history on present qualia, unmediated by anything in physical structure or nearby in space and time.
(Chalmers, David J: Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia,
consc.net/papers/qualia.html)
[b]Chalmers’ reticence can be settled if one posits that transtemporal/transenvironmental isomorphism can occur through multiple-realizability.
By the mechanism of multiple-realizability (in which an event or circumstance can in principle be reproduced by distinct processes operating independent of relation), two beings existing centuries apart in necessarily different environments (each being necessarily differing in appearance and physiology)—may accidentally achieve in their own way an identical neural pattern of function yielding (at least) identical mental experience.[/b]
[b]If, as Chalmers proposes, all that is required for isomorphism is duplication of the electrical pattern of the brain, the brains of two individuals existing centuries apart may possess enough similarity of structure to suffice for at least a one-time-only production of identical electrical pattern of activity. Is it possible for the mental image of a car speeding through a rainy night to exist separately in the mind of a dreaming modern human and Julius Caesar?
One can concede that the nature of transtemporal-isomorphic experience, if it exists, is more likely cognitive or emotional than sensory.
(Isomorphism of sensory experience between individuals existing centuries apart will be difficult, given difference in currently perceived environment. The brain, however, may in principle produce simulated realities of another’s (sensory) perception in hallucinations or dreams.)
What matters is that all factors being environmentally and functionally equal (within the bounds of multiple realizability), there is no principled obstacle to the sharing of experience between conscious systems separated by time and space.[/b]
[size=150] Transtemporal Psychic Isomorphism And The Sacrifice Of Jesus Christ [/size]
[b]The First Reverie of Jesus Christ, then, is the sacrificial TPI (Transtemporal Psychic Isomorphism) between Christ and the entire gamut of painful human experience, derived from God’s foreknowledge of past, present, and future.
The First Reverie entails all acts of sexual, physical, emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse; interpersonal conflict; murder; rape, and moral debasement and perversion—with Christ performing the role of victim and perpetrator:[/b]
Surprise! You’re Dead!
Ha ha ha! Open your eyes
See the world as it used to be when you used to be in it
When you were alive and when you were in love
And when I took it from you!
It’s not over yet!
You don’t remember?
I won’t let you forget
The hatred I bestowed
Upon your neck with a fatal blow
With my teeth and my tongue
I’ve drank and swallowed but its just begun
Now you are mine
I’ll keep killing you ‘til the end of time
SURPRISE!! You’re dead!
Guess what?
It never ends!
the-pain-the-torment-and-torture-profanity-nausea-suffering-perversion-calamity
You can’t…get…away!
-Faith No More: Surprise! You’re Dead! (song); The Real Thing (album)
1989
On the surface, the very idea of a human-history-simulating psychic isomorphism is not very plausible, when one considers the difficulty in imagining a dying brain with the capacity to generate a simulated reality depicting the negative experiences of every human that has ever lived.
In response to this difficulty, a property of dreams (simulated realities having no isomorphic reference to the external world) will presumably be among the elements in an explanation seeking to establish the logical possibility of the First Reverie. A second element will be the notion of computation—which at the fundamental level is the processing of information through a specific arrangements of symbols.
In philosophy, the computational theory of mind is the view that the human mind is best conceived as an information processing system and that thought is a form of computation. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1961 and developed by Jerry Fodor in the 60s and 70s.
The computational theory of mind is a philosophical concept that the mind functions as a computer or symbol manipulator. The theory is that the mind computes input from the natural world to create outputs in the form of further mental or physical states. A computation is the process of taking input and following a step by step algorithm to get a specific output. The computational theory of mind claims that there are certain aspects of the mind that follow step by step processes to compute representations of the world, however this theory does not claim that computation is sufficient for thought.
(Wikipedia: Computationalism, en.wikipedia/org/wiki/ Computationalism_htm)
Brains as biological computers
A computer, in the broadest sense, is a device for storing and processing information. In an ordinary digital computer, information is represented by magnetic elements that have two possible states, often denoted 0 and 1.
In a brain, information is represented both dynamically, by trains of action potentials in neurons, and statically, by the strengths of synaptic connections between neurons. In a digital computer, information is processed by a small set of “registers” that operate at speeds of billions of cycles per second. In a brain, information is processed by billions of neurons all operating simultaneously, but only at speeds around 100 cycles per second. Thus brains and digital computers are similar in that both are devices for processing information, but the ways that they do it are very different.
The computational functions of the brain are studied by neuroscientists and computer scientists alike. There have been several attempts to build electronic computers that operate on brain-like principles, including a supercomputer called the Connection Machine, but to date none of them have achieved notable success. Brains have several advantages that are difficult to duplicate in an electronic device, including (1) the microscopic size of the processing elements, (2) the three-dimensional arrangement of connections, and (3) the fact that each neuron generates its own power (metabolically).
(Wikipedia: Brain, en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Brain.htm)]
[size=150]From Computation Of Mind To The Simulation Of Every Human That Has Ever Lived—Bostrom’s Calculation[/size]
[size=90]All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
(Psalm 139: 16)[/size]
The third element (providing support for the logical possibility of the First Reverie of Jesus Christ) is Nick Bostrom’s calculation of the number of computer computations necessary to simulate the entire physical and mental history of every human that has ever lived:
Bostrom calculated that simulating the brain functions of all humans who have ever lived would require roughly 10^33 to 10^36 calculations. He further calculated that a planet-sized computer built using known nanotechnology would perform about 10^42 calculations per second — and a planet-sized computer is not inherently impossible to build, (though the speed of light could severely constrain the speed at which sub-processors share data).
(Wikipedia: Simulated Reality, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_Reality)
Nick Bostrom in his own words:
While it is not possible to get a very exact estimate of the cost of a realistic simulation of human history, we can use ~10^33 - 10^36 operations as a rough estimate*.
[*100 billion humans + 50 years/human + 30 million secs/year [10^14, 10^17 operations in each human brain per second] = [10^33, 10^36] operations.]
As we gain more experience with virtual reality, we will get a better grasp of the computational requirements for making such worlds appear realistic to their visitors.
But in any case, even if our estimate is off by several orders of magnitude, this does not matter much for our argument. We noted that a rough approximation of the computational power of a planetary-mass computer is 10^42 operations per second, and that assumes only already known nanotechnological designs, which are probably far from optimal. A single such computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind (call this an ancestor-simulation) by using less than one millionth of its processing power for one second.
(Bostrom, Nick: Are You Living In A Computer Simulation? simulation-argument.com]
[size=150] The Brain Function/TPI Time Problem: The Bane Of Superchristianity? [/size]
[size=130]If it is possible[/size] [b]for the human brain to neurally generate TPIs, and if the dying brain of Jesus Christ is capable of producing TPIs, one may nevertheless conclude that there is no room in the neurons of a normal (much less deteriorating) brain for the number of Bostromian calculations necessary to sustain a TPI involving the physical and mental experiences of every human being within the span of human existence.
Superchristianity lessens the TPI load with the requirement that only emotionally significant experiences were simulated in the mind of Christ (ruling out the banal or the mundane, which in the ‘real world’ exist as “filler” material). Thus the primary experiences of Christ in the First Reverie are the negative psychosocial experiences of every human being.[/b]
[size=150]Reservation Against The Use Of Brain Function Alone To Establish The Logical Possibility Of The First Reverie [/size]
Time is a crucial factor in entailments of Christ’s death (in the interest of Christ’s sacrifice for mankind). A problem for sacrificial TPI is the period of time before Christ’s death (the period of time between the raising of the prisoner upon the cross and actual death). If the death of Christ occurred too soon, an insurmountable problem for sacrificial TPI results, as Christ would not have sufficient time (given deteriorating brain process and approaching death) to experience the entire sacrificial simulation.
The average time of suffering before death by crucifixion is stated to be about 2-4 days(Tenney), although there are reported cases where the victims lived for 9 days.(Lipsius) The actual causes of death by crucifixion were multifactorial, one of the most significant would have been the severity of the scourging (Edwards).
(Terasaka, David M.D: The Medical Aspects Of The Crucifixion Of Jesus Christ,
frugalsites.net/jesus/medical.html)
It is perhaps impossible for a transtemporal psych-isomorphism involving the entire transhistorical/transfuturistic human experience to “fit” within Christ’s neuron’s (or that there is a neural network in the human brain, regardless of complexity, that can give rise to such a vast TPI)—given Christ’s brief survival upon the cross compared to Tenney’s average (2-4 days).
Jesus died a quick physical death. Pilate was surprised that He had died so soon.(Mark 15:44).
(Terasaka, David M.D: The Medical Aspects Of The Crucifixion Of Jesus Christ,
frugalsites.net/jesus/medical.html)
Solitary reliance upon the physical brain to do all the work in establishing the logical possibility of TPI or Christ’s sacrificial TPI probably leads to a dead end. Something more than the brain seems required to fill the explanatory gap.
[size=150] A Non-Supernatural Escape From The Brain Function/TPI Time Problem? [/size]
[b]This “something more” may overcome the Brain Function/TPI time problem (without a slide into the magical or supernatural) if it utilizes the metaphysical speculations of David Chalmers and Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity.
Other methods (circumventing the TPI problem) will succeed, but will “run out of time” in their attempts to fit all the relevant TPI’s into Christ’s brain before it ceases to function. Other methods will dodge the bullet by appeal to the supernatural.
The first method (the “something more”) attacks the TPI problem by an appeal to non-embodied consciousness —‘bytes’ or ‘particles’ of consciousness without physical embodiment supervening on the brain of Christ.
(Non-embodied consciousness is a conceptual extrapolation of David Chalmer’s panprotopsychism. Non-embodied consciousness borrows the “protophenomena” (particles of consciousness locked within physical particles) from panprotopsychism and removes their physical embodiment to form “non-embodied protophenomena”—particles of pure consciousness floating in spacetime).[/b]
[b]Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity works in tandem with non-embodied consciousness to provide Christ a frame of reference within the sacrificial simulation relative to the passage of time in the ‘real world’.
An appeal to non-embodiment might pull off the conceptual and logical trick: if psychophysical consciousness is constrained by lack of sufficient neural hook-ups, brain size, and neural processing speed, might non-psychophysical consciousness, being free of the physical, be able to do the job (of the sacrificial TPI) in lieu of the brain?[/b]
[size=150] The Potent Threat Of The Brain Function/TPI Problem To Superchristianity[/size]
[b]If the physical exists with psychophysical laws prohibiting the existence of disembodied or non-embodied consciousness, Superchristianity stumbles upon an insurmountable dead end.
Superchristianity is in danger because its hands are tied in ways that other versions of Judeo-Christian theology are not. Superchristianity is not allowed to fall back upon the supernatural.
Superchristianity is conceived as a Rational Theology, in which the concept of God’s existence, properties, and powers are empirically-derived (derived from empirical knowledge if not empirically known) rather than supernatural. For example, the substance comprising the Judeo-Christian God—in Superchristianity—is normal consciousness rather than supernatural ectoplasm or “spirit”. God is thus characterized as a normal conscious mind (or humanoid mind) the size of the multiverse—possessing control over every particle in the multiverse (in the form of a naturalistic telekinesis)—which he uses to form a variety of different worlds (or virtual worlds if the physical does not exist).[/b]
Although all the elements of such a system can be naturalistic, even physical, it is possible to draw some loose analogies with religious conceptions of the world. In some ways, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation: the posthumans created the world we see; they are of superior intelligence; they are “omnipotent” in the sense that they can interfere in the workings of our world even in ways that violate its physical laws; and they are “omniscient” in the sense that they can monitor everything that happens.
Further rumination on these themes could climax in a naturalistic theogony that would study the structure of this hierarchy, and the constraints imposed on its inhabitants by the possibility that their actions on their own level may affect the treatment they receive from dwellers of deeper levels. For example, if nobody can be sure that they are at the basement-level, then everybody would have to consider the possibility that their actions will be rewarded or punished, based perhaps on moral criteria, by their simulators. An afterlife would be a real possibility.
(Bostrom, Nick: Are You Living In A Computer Simulation? simulation-argument.com]
[Thus Jesus’statement that “God is a spirit” can be interpreted to mean that God is an omnipotent conscious mind without physical embodiment rather than a supremely powerful supernatural ectoplasm.]
Rational Theism proposes either the nonexistence of the physical (enabling a Theological Simulism, in which humans are ‘virtual people’ existing within a God-controlled ‘virtual world’) or the existence of a God-controlled Type-D interactionism:
Type-D Dualism
Type-D dualism holds that microphysics is not causally closed, and that phenomenal properties play a causal role in affecting the physical world. On this view, usually known as interactionism, physical states will cause phenomenal states, and phenomenal states cause physical states. The corresponding psychophysical laws will run in both directions. On this view, the evolution of microphysical states will not be determined by physical principles alone.
It is sometimes objected that distinct physical and mental states could not interact, since there is no causal nexus between them. But one lesson from Hume and from modern science is that the same goes for any fundamental causal interactions, including those found in physics.
By far the most influential objection to interactionism is that it is incompatible with physics. It is widely held that science tells us that the microphysical realm is causally closed, so that there is no room for mental states to have any effects.
An interactionist might respond in various ways. For example, it could be suggested that although no experimental studies have revealed these effects, none have ruled them out.
It might further be suggested that physical theory allows any number of basic forces (four as things stand, but there is always room for more), and that an extra force associated with a mental field would be a reasonable extension of existing physical theory. These suggestions would invoke significant revisions to physical theory, so are not to be made lightly; but one could argue that nothing rules them out.
(Chalmers, David J: Consciousness And It’s Place In Nature, consc.net/consc-papers.html)
[size=150] The Effects Of Non-Embodied Consciousness: Can The Nonpsychophysical Supervene On The Physical? [/size]
[b]A natural worry arises: Can non-embodied consciousness supervene on physical systems? Can it displace psychophysical consciousness?
On the face of things, given the non-physicality of conscious experience in the first place (in terms of its inaccessibility beyond introspection)—it seems that nothing prevents such supervenience.
Psychophysical and non-psychophysical consciousness are indistinguishable, composed of the same subjective “substance”. There is every reason to believe that the consciousness of a non-embodied mind may in priniciple yield subjective experiences indistinguishable from those of a functioning brain.[/b]
The Simulated Hyothesis is the proposition that reality could be simulated—often computer simulated—to a degree indistinguishable from ‘true’ reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not know that they are living inside a simulation. In its strongest form, the Simulation Hypothesis claims we actually are living in such a simulation.
(Wikipedia: Simulated Reality, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_Reality)
[size=150]At Last…A Solution? [/size]
[b]Perhaps the Mind-Body/TPI time problem is solved by appeal to a non-embodied variant of Chalmers’ panprotopsychism (the view that at the fundamental level of physical reality there are ‘bytes’ of proto-consciousness that collectively constitute consciousness).
Non-embodied protophenomena:
-
Supervenes on the biology of Jesus Christ (through Type-D interactionism or ‘virtual’ Type-D interactionism if the physical does not exist)
-
Places the physical brain of Christ in suspended animation (with no interference of the pathological deterioration of the body of Christ, save to slow deterioration enough to spare the brain from the most strenuous effects of physiological feedback until the end of the sacrificial simulation):
([/b]Important Note! The ILP thread: The Brain Is A Scarecrow, proposes that the brain is a “false machine” contrived by God to make things appear as if psychophysicalism is true, for the purpose of setting up a reductio ad absurdum revealing the impossibility of brain process keeping up with the speed of constantly changing experience. If the brain is indeed a “scarecrow”, the notion of non-embodied protophenomena arresting the brain function of Christ can be ignored, with the protophenomena working instead to construct the sacrificial simulation over the mental space of the simulation of Christ’s relative vantage point (and experience) of the crucifixion)
There is no evident contradiction in supposing the existence of permanent synaptic barriers, permanent analogs of botulinus toxin or morphine, or yet other mechanisms that would block all brain-functioning while leaving the brain’s neuronal structure intact and ready for action (at least until such time as the effects of this non-function on the rest of the body might react back on the brain in a destructive manner). Therefore there is no reason to think that cessation of function, whether reversible or irreversible, necessarily implies total or even partial destruction of the brain; still less death of the person.
Byrne, P., O’Reilly, S., and Quay, P.M. (1979). Brain death: An opposing viewpoint. JAMA, 2, Nov, 242 (18), 1985-90.]
[b]3. Constitutes the sacrificial TPI-program that atones for the sins of humanity
The non-embodied protophenomena are assimilated by the Judeo-Christian God into the simulated reality of the sacrificial TPI. Without the constraint of biological processing, the n-protophenomena easily meets Bostrom’s requirement of ~10^33 - 10^36 operations within the programming space of Jesus’ mind (a smaller computation is in fact required, as Christ is proposed to experience only the emotionally significant experiences of all human beings).
The operation is ridiculously simple if the physical does not exist, as there exists only bytes of consciousness available for assimilation into simulated realities. If the physical exists, the entire process is determined through extremely intricate manipulation of the psychophysical relations in Type-D interactionism.[/b]
[size=150]The Final Conundrum: Christ’s Sense Of Time Within The Sacrificial Simulation (And Simulation Speed) [/size]
[b]If one chooses (for the sake of argument) to accept that God placed the brain of Jesus Christ in suspended animation to permit Christ’s experience of a seemingly endless ‘virtual world’, there remains the question of:
-
The speed of the simulation (compared to rate of ‘real time’), and the capacity of simulation-speed to satisfy Bostrom’s calculation (presumably a simulation at ‘normal’ speed may not be able to “fit in” all human negative experience) before the ‘deadline’ of Christ’s death and the end of the simulation (a prerequisite for the miracle of Resurrection)
-
The speed of Christ’s perception of time within the simulation
The question may find an answer in the freedom of non-embodied consciousness from the constraints of the psychophysical. Free (non-embodied) consciousness may pass as fast or as slow as its fundamental nature allows, at speeds far beyond those allowed by physical information-processing. One can go so far as to propose a speculative limit to the speed of free consciousness, as the existing limit of free consciousness speed is unknown.
Given this, the speed of light can work as a hypothetical limit, and there seems nothing wrong in adopting the speed of light as the speed of the sacrificial TPI within the mind of Christ.[/b]
If the speed of light suffices for the speed of non-embodied consciousness, one can invoke Albert Einstein’s Special Theory Of Relativity in regard to the question of subjective frame of reference within non-embodied experience.
[size=150]Last Chance to Solve Christ’s Subjective Time Problem: A Solution From Einstein? [/size]
[b]Given the logical possibility of:
-
Quantum mentality
-
The ability of Quantum mentality to suspend animation of Christ’s neural function and decomposition
-
The ability of Quantum mentality to form simulated realities that juxtapose or replace psychophysical consciousness
-
The upper limit of the speed of light for rate of passage of non-embodied experience
There remains the worry of subjective experience of time within a simulation moving at the speed of light (or less-than-light speed if slower speed satisfies Bostrom’s calculation). Is life inside the sacrificial TPI experienced in ‘real time’—or are experiences moving faster than the conscious mind’s ability to notice?[/b]
Einstein’s Special Relativity
[b]Perhaps a property of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity exists in lightspeed simulation—if one grants that relativisitic properties in psychophysical experience are capable of duplication in non-embodied experience.
If the spatiotemporal structure of consciousness is capable of integration by the function of the brain—is the same structure capable of integration by non-embodied protophenomena?
If so, then one can propose that there may exist a natural cohesion between conscious experience, the subject of experience, and the subject’s sense of time within experience— regardless of psychophysicality or non-embodiment. If Einstein proposes the physical world to exist in such a way that it provides normal perception of time regardless of whether or not an observer in a spaceship is moving near the speed of light or bound to the center of the Earth, one can argue (from greater simplicity) that normal perception of time and place is possible for non-embodied consciousness at lightspeed.[/b]
If Einstein’s Special Relativity applies to psychophysical and non-embodied consciousness alike, the subjective experience of time is “normal” to a conscious being in a spaceship or a simulated reality moving at or near the speed of light.
[size=120]Einstein and Relative Time[/size]
One of Einstein’s strengths was that he’s someone who was comfortable thinking outside the box. Einstein concluded that since they measured the speed of light to be the same in all frames of reference, but the distance the light traveled differed between observers moving at different speeds, and since distance is speed multiplied by time, different observers must see time differently. The speed that one progressed through time varied with your frame of reference and relative motion to the object you are observing. Einstein theorized, and it was later proven, that good clocks will not always agree In what time it is because they move through time at different speeds.
So, if someone is moving at 99% of the speed of light and shines a light in front of them, one would think it would only go 1% faster, and for a stationary observer (whatever that really means) it would look that way. However, from the point of view of the person moving, it looks to them as if the light is moving away at 100% of the speed of light. How can that be? Well, suppose that the fast moving person is moving into the future at a faster rate than the stationary observer, who is aging faster. Because they are moving into the future 100 times faster, light appears to be moving 100 times faster than it really is. Thus the distortion of time causes the laws of physics to be the same in any frame of reference and at observers agree on the speed of light, but do not agree on time.
If you got in a rocket ship and accelerated you could go what seems infinitely fast to you. You could travel to a star 100 light years away and get there by lunch, turn around, and get back to Earth the same day. But you will find that everyone else is 200 years (and one day) older than you are. From their perspective, you were traveling very close to the speed of light and it took 200 years for light to get to that star and back. But to you, it was only a day. Your aging slowed down because you move forward through time faster. What you observe as linear acceleration in space that obeys Newton’s laws, isn’t what really happens. You start out accelerating in space but as you gain speed you start accelerating through time instead. You can only move at the speed of light in space, but can move infinitely fast through time.
[Note: Beyond the sacrificial simulation of Jesus Christ, the physical world (in which the crucifixion occurs) remains unchanged, thus the 200 year difference in experience and aging between earthbound humans and a human traveling to a star 100 light years away in the hypothetical above does not apply to the differences between lightspeed non-embodied simulation and normal psychophysical experience.]
A simulated reality need not run in realtime. The inhabitants of a simulated universe would have no way of knowing that one day of subjective time actually required much longer to calculate in their host computer, or vice-versa. Isaac Asimov pushed the limits of this by claiming that, unbeknownst to the inhabitants, the simulation could even run backwards, or in pieces on different computers, or with a million generations of monks working weekends on ababucses — all without the simulation missing a beat ‘in simulation time’.
(Wikipedia: Simulated Reality, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_Reality)
The difference between a human within a simulated reality and a human experiencing the ‘real world’ will presumably lie in the vast number of experiences indigenous to the simulation, compared to the number of experiences available to normal consciousness. Innumerable experiences may conceivably “fit” within a simulation moving at the speed of light.]
[size=150]Conclusion[/size]
[b]This sets the basic table. The Superchristian Hypothesis proposes that Jesus Christ experienced the negative mental and physical history of every human being in a “normal” perception of time, with the simulation containing the experiences passing “externally” at the speed of light. The brain of Christ is locked in suspended animation by “particles” of pure consciousness. This constitutes the ‘technological’ aspect of the First Reverie Of Jesus Christ.
In addition, Superchristianity posits that Christ experienced intermittent moments of wakefulness from the sacrificial TPI, allowing him to state his final words (related in the Gospels). The sacrificial simulation is proposed to end before Christ states his last words:[/b]
“It is finished.” (John 19:30 NIV)
And:
“Father, into your hand I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46 NIV)
However, the concept of non-embodied consciousness moving at lightspeed (in a simulated reality mimicking the experiences of every human that has ever lived) is almost impossible to swallow. Following Chalmers, this difficulty may simply be a product of our conceptual ignorance: if the hypothesis remains coherent and logically possible (given further rational reflection)—conceptual ignorance is no reason to deny its possible truth.
This is true, but one could suggest that this merely a product of our ignorance. At most, there is ignorance of a connection. Of course it would be very desirable to form a positive conception of protophenomenal properties. Perhaps we can do this indirectly, by some sort of theoretical inference from the character of phenomenal properties to their underlying constituents; or perhaps knowledge of the nature of protophenomenal properties will remain beyond us. Either way, this is no reason to reject the truth of the view.
(Chalmers, David J: Consciousness And It’s Place In Nature, consc.net/consc-papers.html)
[b]The First Reverie of Jesus Christ is a bizarre hypothesis, involving more causal twists, turns, and setups than the simple “blood magic” of Fundamentalist Christianity. However, one can argue that it cannot be ruled out based on what we know (or what we believe or would like to believe) about the nature of consciousness and the external world. Appeals to “reason” and “common sense” are of little use, as the hypothesis may be true nevertheless—in the way that the Matrix Hypothesis, for all we know, falsifies Facsimile Realism.
At the end of the day, an opponent of the First Reverie (or of Superchristianity itself) is able only to claim the hypothesis false (or probably false) with no reliable indication of its falsehood from experience. One can argue that such epistemological prejudice crookedly deals under the table, with arguments against unusual theories hypocritically casting their vote toward other corrigible beliefs (beliefs that may be false for all one knows).
At any rate, the First Reverie of Jesus Christ provides a more empirically-referenced (through introspective speculation about the nature and possibilites inherent in one’s own conscious experience) entailment of the atonement (“at-one-ment”) for the sins of mankind, one which relies not upon supernatural power and explanation but upon a Rational Theism that easily meshes with the properties of the natural world, enabling a descendant of Rational Theism (such as Superchristianity) to confidently take its place among other metaphysically and logically possible hypotheses providing unfalsifiable descriptions of the hidden nature of the world.[/b]
[size=200]END[/size]
I do have a nasty temper that requires more control and understanding than the normal person has to do for their temper. So perhaps that is where my patience has been aquired.