Le 08-juin-05, à 07:51, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :
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
other smtp for some unknown reason.
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I
a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a
as an "essence of an experience"? I'd suggest there is no such "thing"
observer-moment. I'm happy with using the concept as a tag of sorts
discussing observer selection issues, but I think reifying it is
mistake, and goes considerably beyond Strong AI into a full Cartesian
Not at all. You get dualism only because *you* are reifying
metaphysical notion like substantial matter, time etc.
Is it generally accepted here on this list that a
substrate-independent thing called an "observer moment" exists?
To be sure I have problem with the notion of observer moments, or more
precisely with the idea that observer-moments can be taken as
With comp (which is stronger than strong AI, strictly speaking) it has
been proved that both
space-time-energy-matter-sharable-measurable-quantity AND their
qualitative features emerges from arithmetical truth. Comp implies a