>From: Jonathan Colvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:51 AM
>Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>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
>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?
I agree. There seems to be a jump from the Strong AI idea that a brain can be
instantiated in some medium other than neurons (e.g. a computer) to the idea
that the brain has "states" that instantiate "experiences". Somehow static
patterns get slipped in place of processes.