On 3/4/2011 6:13 AM, 1Z wrote:


On Mar 4, 7:57 am, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be>  wrote:
>  On 03 Mar 2011, at 18:39, 1Z wrote:
>
>  >  If you have a UDA inside a physical universe,
>
>  I guess you mean "a UD inside a physical universe".
>
>  UDA is for the UD-Argument. The Universal Dovetailer Argument.
>
>  >  there is real physics
>  >  (qua physicalevents)
>  >  outside it, and there is a real study of physics outside it as well.
>  >  What goes on in a
>  >  virtualised environment is not real. You could feed virtualised people
>  >  false information
>  >  about the past, but that would not be rewriting history (in the sense
>  >  of changing the real
>  >  past) and it would have not mean that the virtualissed people had some
>  >  valid kind of history qua study of the past) either, since it would
>  >  not be based
>  >  on true facts.
>
>  That might be consistent in some theory.
ie the common-sense intutions most people have

>  But you elude the reasoning
>  and the questions.
>
>  >  Likewise, their "phsyics" would not really be phsyics
>  >  , because it would not be based on the only real phsyical reality, the
>  >  one in which
>  >  the UDA is embedded.
>
>  Sorry but in this case, it would be based on the 'real physical
>  reality'.
It would not be based on empirical data about the real physical
reality. It would be based on it ontologically, but they would
be unawae of that

>  The UD is physically running in that universe, and by the
>  first person indeterminacy, even if you do an experiment in the
>  physical universe, your first person experience remains determined by
>  the physical computations made by the physical UD. So to connect your
>  experience with the physical reality, that physical reality has to be
>  retrievable from the mathematics of the UD (computer science/number
>  theory).
But there is no guarantee that  a virtualised person would
have any epistemic connection to physical reality. Some
of them might see a realistic simulation through coincidence,
but it is doubtful  that coincidence can found knowledge.
....
>     If you still don't see this, ask for clarification of the sane04
>  paper(*), because it seems to me that the first seven steps are rather
>  clear, there. You have mentioned the WR. I take from this that you do
>  understand the six first steps, don't you? The seven step follows
>  mainly from the invariance of first person experience for change in
>  the delays of the (virtual) 'reconstitutions'.
>
>  The eighth step is really more conceptually subtle, and the clearer
>  presentation I have done until now is in this list in the "MGA" thread
>  (the Movie Graph Argument). It shows that the "real concrete UD" is
>  not needed for the reversal to occur.

This touches on my doubts about the MGA. I think that instantiate consciousness would require a lot of environment outside just the brain. I base this in part on experiments with sense deprivation which showed that after a short while, absent any external stimulation, the brain tends to go into a loop. Bruno has answered this by saying that the MG is not limited to a brain but can be as comprehensive as necessary, a whole universe. But in that limit it becomes clear that the consciousness realized is not in our world but is in another virtual world. That there might, given a suitable interpretation, be computations and consciousness in some other virtual world raises the paradox of the self-conscious rock which Stathis and I discussed at length.

Brent

--
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