Kelly wrote: > On Apr 21, 11:31 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> We could say that a state A access to a state B if there is a >> universal machine (a universal number relation) transforming A into B. >> This works at the ontological level, or for the third person point of >> view. But if A is a consciousness related state, then to evaluate the >> probability of personal access to B, you have to take into account >> *all* computations going from A to B, and thus you have to take into >> account the infinitely many universal number relations transforming A >> into B. Most of them are indiscernible by "you" because they differ >> below "your" substitution level. >> > > So, going back to some of your other posts about "transmitting" a copy > of a person from Brussels to Moscow. What is it that is transmitted? > Information, right? So for that to be a plausible scenario we have to > say that a person at a particular instant in time can be fully > described by some set of data. > > It would seem to me that their conscious state at that instant must be > recoverable from that set of data. The only question is, what > conditions must be met for them to "experience" this state, which is > completely described by the data set? I don't see any obvious reason > why anything additional is needed. What does computation really add > to this? > > You say that computation is crucial for this "experience" to take > place. But why would this be so? Why couldn't we just say that your > various types of mathematical logic can describe various types of > correlations, categories, patterns, and relationships between > informational states, but don't actually contribute anything to > conscious experience? > > Conscious experience is with the information. Not with the > computations that describe the relations between various informational > states. > > >> But if A is a consciousness related state, then to evaluate >> the probability of personal access to B, you have to take >> into account *all* computations going from A to B >> > > I don't see how probability enters into it. A and B are both fully > contained conscious states.
Here you are assuming the point in question - whether the states are, by themselves, conscious. If they are then it would imply that a record, written on paper or a CD, of the state information transmitted in Bruno's thought experiment would also be conscious. Even further, if you identify information as a Platonic form, then it doesn't even need a physical instantiation. The conscious state will simply exist like the number two exists. > Both will be realized, because both > platonically exist as possible sets of information. State B may have > a "memory" of State A. State A may have an "expectation" (or > premonition) of State B. But that is the only link between the two. > Otherwise the exist independenty. > > So Brian Greene had a good passage somewhat addressing this in his > last book. He's actually talking about the block universe idea, but > still applicable I think: > > "In this way of thinking, events, regardless of when they happen from > any particular perspective, just are. They all exist. They eternally > occupy their particular point in spacetime. This is no flow. But Greene is assuming a real-line topology, so a sequence of consciousness is connected. > If you > were having a great time at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, > 1999, you still are, since that is just one immutable location in > spacetime. > > The flowing sensation from one moment to the next arises from our > conscious recognition of change in our thoughts, feelings, and > perceptions. Each moment in spacetime - each time slice - is like one > of the still frames in a film. Again, that is part of the question. Is the universe digital. > It exists whether or not some projector > light illuminates it. To the you who is in any such moment, it is the > now, it is the moment you experience at that moment. And it always > will be. Moreover, within each individual slice, your thoughts and > memories are sufficiently rich to yield a sense that time has > continuously flowed to that moment. This is what I find dubious. It is certainly true is a sense if an individual slice is thick enough, but it seems to me to be false in the limit of thin slices - and if the slice cannot be arbitrarily thin, a "point in time", then the question remains as to what is the dimension along which it is thick. Brent > This feeling, this sensation that > time is flowing, doesn't require previous moments - previous frames - > to be sequentially illuminated." > > On your earlier post: > > >> The physical has to emerge from the statistical >> probability interference among all computations, going through my >> (current) states that are indiscernible from my point of view. >> Why such interference takes the form of wave interference is still a >> (technical) open problem. >> > > In my view, I just happen to be inhabit a perceptual universe that is > fairly orderly and follows laws of cause and effect. However, there > are other conscious observers (including other versions of me) who > inhabit perceptual universes that are much more chaotic and > nonsensical. > > But everything that can be consciously experienced is experienced, > because there exists information (platonically) that describes a mind > (human, animal, or other) having that experience. > > I say that because it seems to me that this information could > (theoretically) be produced by a computer simulation of such a mind, > which would presumably be conscious. So add platonism to that, and > there you go! > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---