On 7/23/2010 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think this has nothing to do with technology. It is just that
consciousness is not related to the activity of the physical machine,
but to the logic which makes the person supported by the computation
integrating that information.
Thank you for your reply.
I mention technology because, as of now, we don't seem to have any
conscious artifacts. Do you agree? If so, what do we need to construct
conscious artifacts? If you don't agree, what has man constructed that
is or may be conscious? Or is my question nonsensical?
In a sense it is just false to relate consciousness to any third
person describable activity, and in fine, if we are machine, our
consciousness, which is a first person notion, is related (not even
defined by) all the possible computations going through the logical
state of the machine. This entails that any machine looking at itself
below its substitution level (the level at which it feels surviving an
artificial digital substitution) will discover that the apparent
material reality is multiple: matter relies on infinity of
computations. This is retrospectively confirmed by quantum mechanics.
I don't want to ignore this portion, it's just more advanced than
I am, I don't have a comfortable grasp on the concepts, so I can't make
even an attempt at a response.
In fine, matter is a construction of the mind, in the case we are
digital machine. The brain does not makes consciousness, it filters it
from infinities of first person histories. Tononi is a bit naïve, like
many, on the mind-body (consciousness-reality) relationship. The
integration does not rely on what a machine do, but on what an
infinity of possible machines can do, and how consistent environment
reacts to what the machine (person) decides.
It is a subtle matter, which necessitate to revise the fundamental
status of physics. No amount of third person description will ever
define what is consciousness, and this for reason related to Mechanism
and discoveries in computer science/mathematical logic. You may look
at my url for more if interested. Of you can find sum up and
explanation in the archive of the list.
I want to ask a question about "The Origin of Physical Laws and
Sensations". I don't understand it yet, I'll need to re-read the
seventh step multiple times more before I figure it out comfortably.
The fault is certainly my own ignorance, not your explanations. I'll be
returning to it, and taking your advice on reading the List's archives.
- Bruno Marchal
As to my question: At the third step, you wrote "Giving that
Moscow and Washington are permutable without any noticeable changes for
the experiencer, it is reasonable to ascribe a probability of ½ to the
event 'I will be in Moscow (resp. Washington).'" I don't understand the
probability here. If I am duplicated, won't there just be two Allens,
AllenM (for Moscow) and AllenW (Washington)?
When a probability becomes involved, doesn't it seem like you're
saying that there is an entity "I" who is the real Allen, and that "I"
may be AllenM or AllenW, but "I" will not be the other one. The other
one has some "other I". Am I misunderstanding, and - since it's very
likely - to what extent? I don't believe in I's, I think, for lack of a
better phrase, that consciousness is all one. How do you feel about this?
P.S. For anyone to answer: Is this acceptable to reply to three
separate posts with three separate posts of my own, all within such a
short time? I figured one would be quite lengthy, and maybe more
confusing. So I split them into replies according to who I was replying to.
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