At 09:17 AM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
Hal,
snip
I consider an 'observer' (unqualified as to 'its' feature-essence) anything that acknowledges information. A second step, leading to my substitute definition of the ominous consciousness - rather pan-sesitivity, a related term for 'observer' - is the "response" to such 'acknowledged' information, any form , as storage, reaction, mere reference, or some change in qualia. I doubt the relevance of this to what you had in mind.
John Mikes
Actually that is not too far from where I wanted to start.
An experiment:
Suppose we set up a 2D cellular automaton. In this automaton there develops a stationary cluster of cells that has some interior cells cyclically switching color - white/black/white/black... - call it Dance A. There also develops a stationary cluster of cells - Dance B - that shoots one or more small dances - Dance C's - towards Dance A with some arbitrary cyclic or acyclic timing.
Now list possible events and categorize them such as:
1) A C reaches A, vanishes and later reappears at the opposite side of A and continues on, never having changed A. B is unchanged. Did an observation take place and if yes what was it?
2) Same as #1 but when C moves on the interior cell color flips of A have changed. Same question as for #1.
3) Same as #1 but when C moves on A has moved one cell pitch closer to B with no other changes to A. Same question.
etc. etc.
What is the base level(s) and character(s) of "observation" in this venue?
Stephen Paul King responded:
At 03:12 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Your question is one that I have been trying to address for a long time. Since we have to consider the notion that an observer cannot have itself directly as an object of experience,
I think that the only two events are of note
1) Two dances collide. The collision results in changes to none, one, or both.
2) A part of a large dance collides with another part of the same dance.
#2 might allow self observation depending on what "observation" is.
it seems to me that we can instead consider how the observables of one observer are different from another's in a way to, indirectly, defining and distinguish one observer from another.
My idea is to start with the notion of a class X of all possible "observables" (in anthropomorphic terms: perceptions) and think about how they might be partitioned up such that each "observer" would be associated with some subclass of X. We notice immediately that the idea of a "light cone structure" (used in Relativity) is related to this class.
Comments?
Dances may merge but not overlap.
