Hal Finney wrote: >To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what >is an OM. >We need a formal model and description of a particular OM. >Consider, for example, someone's brain when he is having a >particular experience. He is eating chocolate ice cream while >listening to Beethoven's 5th symphony, on his 30th birthday. >Imagine that we could scan his brain with advanced technology >and record his neural activity. Imagine further that with the >aid of an advanced brain model we are able to prune out the >unnecessary information and distill this to the essence of the >experience. We come up with a pattern that represents that >observer moment. Any system which instantiates that pattern >genuinely creates an experience of that observer moment. This >pattern is something that can be specified, recorded and >written down in some form. It probably involves a huge volume of >data.
Sorry for the delay in response, but eskimo started bouncing mail from my other smtp for some unknown reason. There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I suppose, for a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a thing as an "essence of an experience"? I'd suggest there is no such "thing" as an observer-moment. I'm happy with using the concept as a tag of sorts when discussing observer selection issues, but I think reifying it is likely a mistake, and goes considerably beyond Strong AI into a full Cartesian dualism. Is it generally accepted here on this list that a substrate-independent thing called an "observer moment" exists? Jonathan Colvin