Russell Standish wrote:
>> If treasures were not hidden in the mud, they would not be treasures :-)
>I suspect your words came out wrong here - do you mean "A treasure
>hidden by mud is still a treasure"? Which, of course I agree with.
Thanks for correcting my words.
>I would be ecstatic if someone developed a working theory of
You know that the UDA explains that matter emerge from consciousness
(to say the things roughly). If by "working theory of consciousness"
you mean a theory giving explicitely results on physical matter, then
you will be ecstatic.
If you mean a theory useful in AI, you will be disappointed. Actually
my theory is rather negative for AI, it seems at first that machine
will be intelligent *despite* humans.
>I don't think the time here is too mysterious. All one needs is a one
>dimensional parameter t, so one can write down an evolution
A differential equation? It could be a lot for me. This could lead
us toward a new thread. I propose to come back later to the time problem.
A sort of time will appear in my "machine psychology" through the
Russell Standish wrote also:
>Thanks for this extended discussion. It does help a lot, and makes
>even more sense if one assumes COMP (which actually I don't, but for
>the sake of argument, wil do).
Thanks. My practical philophy is to accept comp as a working hypothesis
and to push it to its ultimate limits. I do take the MWI aspect of realist
QM as a sort of confirmation, though.
>Just one further question. Is it possible for one machine to know p
>and another machine to know -p?
Soon "p" will be interpreted as arithmetical propositions, in which case
if p is true it will be true for all machines.