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 everything-list@googlegroups.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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to