On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent
Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that
consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to
interact
with.
I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
counter-example to the claim that consciousness requires a world to
interact with...?
Do you think you could have dreams if you had never interacted with
the world?
There are evidences (REM) that mammal fetus does dream.
Do you agree that DM implies that possibility.
In practice most of our consciousness grounding heavily relies on the
most probable worlds arising from long deep (linear) computations.
Apes fetus can dream climbing trees but they do that with ancestors
climbing the most probable trees of their most probable neighborhoods
since a long period.
With classical mechanism, I would say, that to know is to believe p
when "luckily" p is true, and to be awaken is to be dreaming of a
world when "luckily" the world is real. But real means here first
person sharable, and may result from its stability on random oracles.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent
Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
I think the whole world probably is Turing emulable, but then that
does not
get rid of materialism. Material just becomes one of the things
emulated
along with consciousness.
But then the material world we observe doesn't cause our
consciousness. Rather, the underlying emulation substrate (which we
have no access to) causes both the material world and consciousness.
That's possible, or it may be that the emulatated matter causes the
emulated consciousness; in which case we have the same questions
about consciousness we had before assuming the world is an emulation.
Brent
For instance, it would not be the case that neurons cause
consciousness...neurons wouldn't be an extra layer that existed
between us and the emulation substrate.
What exists would be the emulation substrate, going about it's
business of existing. As a (presumably) accidental side-effect of
that existence, there would be us with our experience of the world.
But, given the example of dreams - which aren't "of" anything
external
to us (again, presumably) - why assume that there actually is a world
beyond our experience .
Perhaps the emulation substrate produces nothing but dreams?
Would there be any reason to predict that such an emulation substrate
would be governed by principles that we could comprehend? How would
it be different from the Kantian noumenal realm?
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
