Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > On 19 Nov 2008, at 20:17, Jason Resch wrote: > >> To add some clarification, I do not think spreading Alice's logic >> gates across a field and allowing cosmic rays to cause each gate >> to perform the same computations that they would had they existed >> in her functioning brain would be conscious. I think this because >> in isolation the logic gates are not computing anything complex, >> only AND, OR, NAND operations, etc. This is why I believe rocks >> are not conscious, the collisions of their molecules may be >> performing simple computations, but they are never aggregated into >> complex patterns to compute over a large set of information. > > > Actually I agree with this argument. But it does not concern Alice, > because I have provide her with an incredible amount of luck. The > lucky rays fix the neurons in a genuine way (by that abnormally big > amount of pure luck). > > > If the cosmic rays are simply keeping her neurons working normally, then > I'm more inclined to believe she remains conscious, but I'm not certain > one way or the other. > > > > If you doubt Alice remain conscious, how could you accept an > experience of simple teleportation (UDA step 1 or 2). If you can > recover consciousness from a relative digital description, how could > that consciousness distinguish between a recovery from a genuine > description send from earth (say), and a recovery from a description > luckily generated by a random process? > > > I believe consciousness can be recovered from a digital description, but > I don't believe the description itself is conscious while being beamed > from one teleporting station to the other. I think it is only when the > body/computer simulation is instantiated can consciousness recovered > from the description. > > Consider sending the description over an encrypted channel, without the > right decryption algorithm and key the description can't be > differentiated from random noise. The same bits could be interpreted > entirely differently depending completely on how the recipient uses it. > The "meaning" of the transmission is recovered when it forms a system > with complex relations, presumably the same relations as the original > one that was teleported, even though it may be running on a different > physical substrate, or a different computer architecture.
Right. That's why I think that a simulation instantiating a conscious being would have to include a lot of environment and the being would only be conscious *relative to that environment*. I think it is an interesting empirical question whether a person can be conscious with no interaction with their environment. It appears that it is possible for short periods of time, but I once read that in sensory deprivation experiments the subjects minds would go into a loop after a couple of hours. Is that still being conscious? Brent Meeker > > I don't deny that a random process could be the source of a transmission > that resulted in the creation of a conscious being, what I deny is that > random *simple computations, lacking any causal linkages, could form > consciousness. > > * By simple I mean the types of computation done in discrete steps, such > as multiplication, addition, etc. Those done by a single neuron or a > small collection of logic gates. > > If you recover from a description (comp), you cannot know if that > description has been generated by a computation or a random process, > unless you give some prescience to the logical gates. Keep in mind > we try to refute the conjunction MECH and MAT. > > > Here I would say that consciousness is not correlated with the physical > description at any point in time, but rather the computational history > and flow of information, and that this is responsible for the subjective > experience of being Alice. If Alice's mind is described by a random > process, albeit one which gives the appearance of consciousness during > her exam, she nevertheless has no coherent computational history and her > mind contains no large scale informational structures. The state > machine that would represent her in the case of injection of random > noise is a different state machine that would represent her normally > functioning brain. > > Jason > > > > Nevertheless your intuition below is mainly correct, but the point > is that accepting it really works, AND keeping MECH, will force us > to negate MAT. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> Jason >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Jason Resch >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Bruno Marchal >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Does everyone accept, like Russell, that, assuming COMP >> and MAT, Alice >> is not a zombie? I mean, is there someone who object? >> Remember we are >> proving implication/ MAT+MECH => <something>. We never try >> to argue >> about that <something> per se. Eventually we hope to prove >> MAT+MECH => >> false, that is NOT(MAT & MECH) which is equivalent to MAT >> implies NOT >> MECH, MECH => NOT MAT, etc. >> >> (by MAT i mean materialism, or naturalism, or physicalism >> or more >> generally "the physical supervenience thesis", according >> to which >> consciousness supervenes on the physical activity of the >> brain. >> >> >> Bruno, I am on the fence as to whether or not Alice is a >> Zombie. The argument for her not being conscious is related >> to the non causal effect of information in this scenario. A >> string of 1's and 0's which is simply defined out of nowhere, >> in my opinion cannot contain conscious observers, even if it >> could be considered to encode brain states conscious observers >> or a universe with conscious observers. To have meaningful >> information there must be relations between objects, such as >> the flow of information in the succession of states in a >> Turing machine. In the case of Alice, the information coming >> from the cosmic rays is meaningless, and might as well have >> occurred in isolation. If all of Alice's logic gates had been >> spread over a field, and made to fire in the same way due to >> cosmic rays and if all logic gates remained otherwise >> disconnected from each other, would anyone consider this field >> of logic gates be conscious? >> >> I have an idea that consciousness is related to hierarchies of >> information, at the lowest levels of neural activity, simple >> computations of small amounts of information combine >> information into a result, and then these higher level results >> are passed up to higher levels of processing, etc. For >> example the red/green/blue data from the eyes are combined >> into single pixels, these pixels are combined into an field of >> colors, this field of colors is then processed by object >> classification sections of the brain. So my argument that >> Alice might not be conscious would be related to the skipping >> of steps through the injection of information which is "empty" >> (not having been computed from lower level sets of information >> and hence not actually conveying any information). >> >> Jason >> >> ) I do not believe is >> >> >> >> >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
