Kelly wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:31 am, Bruno Marchal <> 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.


> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to