Hi, if you conserve MEC+MAT... then you conserve MEC, which means consciousness is a computational process (running on "real" hardware per MAT) but it is a computational process hence the process cannot rely on the entire universe because if it is then MEC should obviously be false unless the entire universe is also a computational process which then would render MAT useless. Don't you think ?
Regards, Quentin Le samedi 22 novembre 2008 à 11:54 +0000, Telmo Menezes a écrit : > Bruno, > > Conserving MEC+MAT, one could argue that no isolation from the > environment is possible, even while dreaming. Even if you put Alice in > a sensory isolation tank, there is still the possibility that > interactions with the entire environment are an essential part of the > process that produces consciousness. For example, through quantum > entanglement. In the limit, there is the possibility that the entire > universe is necessary for her consciousness to arise, and the film > experiment becomes impossible because you would have to film the > entire sequence of states of the universe during her dream and play > them back. Obviously, the same universe where the dream takes place > cannot also contain the film (you get infinite recursion). I can't see > a way out of this in a single universe. What do you think? > > Cheers, > Telmo Menezes. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > MGA 2 > > > > > > The second step of the MGA, consists in making a change to MGA 1 so > > that we don't have to introduce that unreasonable amount of cosmic > > luck, or of apparent randomness. It shows the "lucky" aspect of the > > coming information is not relevant. Jason thought on this sequel. > > > > > > Let us consider again Alice, which, as you know as an artificial > > brain, made of logic gates. > > Now Alice is sleeping, and doing a dream---like Carroll's original > > Alice. > > > > Today we know that a REM dream is a conscious experience, or better an > > experience of consciousness, thanks to the work of Hearne Laberge, > > Dement, etc. > > Malcolm's theory of dream, where dream are not conscious, has been > > properly refuted by Hearne and Laberge experiences. (All reference can > > be found in the bibliography of my "long thesis". Ask me if you have > > problem to find them. > > > > I am using a dream experience instead of an experience of awakeness > > for having less technical problems and being shorter on the relevant > > points. I let you do the change as an exercise if you want. If you > > have understood UDA up to the sixth step, such change are easy to do. > > To convince Brent Meeker, you will have to put the environment, > > actually its digital functional part in the "generalized brain", > > making the general setting much longer to describe. (If the part of > > the environment needed for consciousness to proceed is not Turing > > emulable, then you already negate MEC of course). > > > > The dream will facilitate the experience. It is known that in a REM > > dream we are paralyzed (no outputs), we are cut out from the > > environment: (no inputs, well not completely because you would not > > hear the awakening clock, but let us not care about this, or do the > > exercise above), ... and we are hallucinating: the dream is a natural > > sort of video game. It shows that the brain is at least a "natural" > > virtual reality generator. OK? > > > > Alice has already an artificial digital brain. This consists in a > > boolean tridimensional graph with nodes being NOR gates, and vertex > > being wires. For the MEC+MAT believer, the dream is produced by the > > physical activity of the "circular digital information processing" > > done by that boolean graph. > > > > With MEC, obviously all what matter is that the boolean graph > > processes the right computation, and we don't have to take into > > account the precise position of the gates in space. They are not > > relevant for the computation (if things like that were relevant we > > would already have said "no" to the doctor. So we can topologically > > deform Alice boolean graph brain and project it on a plane so that no > > gates overlap. Some wires will cross, but (exercise) the crossing of > > the wires function can itself be implemented with NOR gates. (A > > solution of that problem, posed by Dewdney, has been given in the > > Scientific American Journal (and is displayed in "Conscience et > > Mécanisme" with the reference). > > > > So Alice's brain can be made into a plane boolean graph. > > > > Also, a MEC+MAT believer should not insist on the electrical nature > > of the communication by wires, nor on the electrical nature of the > > processing of the information by the gates, so that we can use optical > > information instead. Laser beams play the role of the wires, and some > > destructive interference can be used for the NOR. The details are not > > relevant, given that I am not presenting a realist experiment (below, > > or later, if people harass me with too much engineering question, I > > will propose a completely different representation of the same (with > > respect to the relevance of the reasoning) situation, by using the > > even less realist Ned Block Chinese People Computer: it can be used > > for making clear no magic is used in what follows, with the price that > > its overall implementation is very unrealist, given that the neurons > > are the chinese willingly playing that role. > > > > So, now, we put Alice's brain, which has become a two dimensional > > optical boolean graph, in between two planes of transparent solid > > material, glass, and we add a sort of "clever" fluid cristal together > > with the graph,in between the glass plates. The fluid cristal is > > supposed to have the following peculiar property (which certainly is > > hard to implement concretely but which is possible in principle). Each > > time a beam of light trigs a line between two nodes, it trigs a laser > > beam in the "good" direction between the two optical gates, with the > > correct frequency-color (to keep right the functioning of the NOR). > > > > This works well, and we can let that brain work from time t1 to t2, > > where Alice dreams specifically, for fixing the matter, that she is in > > front of a mushroom, talking with a caterpillar who sits on the > > Muschroom (all right?). We have beforehand save the instantaneous > > state corresponding to the begining of that dream, so as to be able to > > repeat that precise graph activity. > > > > Each time we allow the graph doing the computation corresponding to > > the dream (which exists by MEC), the believer in MAT, who believes in > > the physical supervenience thesis, has to admit Alice is conscious, in > > the sense of having the experience of consciousness of her (non lucid) > > dream: she feels herself talking with a caterpillar for example. > > > > > > Now we film that active graph, with a high resolution camera. > > > > As you have most probably already guess, that film constitutes our > > home made "lucky cosmic explosion" generator, corresponding to Alice's > > dream experience. > > > > So let us suppose that poor Alice got, again, a not very good optical > > plane graph, so that some (1 to many to all, again) NOR gates break > > down, in that precise computation corresponding to her dream > > experience. And let us project, in real time, with the correct > > scaling, the movie we have made, on the graph, playing its role of a > > repeatable lucky rays generator. > > > > If Alice remains conscious in MGA 1, through MEC and MAT, Alice > > remains conscious in this setting too, all right? > > > > In the ALL gates broken case, we have really, *only a movie* of > > Alice's brain activity. Does consciousness arise from the projection > > of that movie? > > > > Should a believer in MEC+MAT believes that? > > > > > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
