On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:27 AM, soulcatcher☠ <soulcatche...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Do you see the meaning of physical laws being somehow different from the
>> programmed laws that simulate an environment?
> Yes, I feel that simulated mind is not identical to the real one.
> Simulation is only the extension of the mind - just a tool, a "mental
> crutch", a pluggable module that gives you additional abilities. For
> example, if I had the computation power of my brain sufficient enough, I
> could simulate other minds entirely in my mind (in imagination, whatever) -
> but these imaginary minds won't be conscious, will they?

I think that depends on the level of resolution to which you are simulating
them.  The people you see in your dreams aren't conscious, but if a super
intelligence could simulate another's mind to the resolution of their
neurons, I think those simulated persons would be conscious.

> In the other words:
> 1. I accept that computation is a description (the impretaive one) of
> reality, like math (declarative) or human language.

There is a difference between computation as a description (say a print out
or CD containing a program's source code) and the computation as an action
or process.  The CD wouldn't be conscious, but if you loaded it into a
computer and executed it, I think it would be.

> 2. I don't believe (for now)  that it has any meaning (and consciousness)
> per se.
So you think the software mind in a software environment would never
question the redness of red, when the robot brain would?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to