On Mar 5, 1:50 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/2011 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On 04 Mar 2011, at 19:41, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> >> On 3/4/2011 6:13 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 4, 7:57 am, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be>  wrote:
>
> >>> ....
> >>>> >     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.
>
> > I am not sure I understand.
>
> >>  That there might, given a suitable interpretation, be computations
> >> and consciousness in some other virtual world ...
>
> > Tthat is consequence of comp. Step "six". Step 1-6 use a "generalized
> > brain = biological brain" only for pedagogical purpose, and then step
> > 7 relaxes that constraint, and the brain can be as big as any finite
> > digital approximate body (like the Heisenberg matrix of the galaxy
> > with 10^100 decimals, at the level of strings: the UD, by sheer
> > stupidity if you want, does go through such program.
>
> >> ... raises the paradox of the self-conscious rock which Stathis and I
> >> discussed at length.
>
> > But the UD Argument provides the solution. The rock emerges itself,
> > relatively to us,
>
> But that's the point.  It isn't "relative to us", the virtual world is
> self-contained.  It's the difference between putting a simulated brain
> into this world and creating a separate world in which there is a
> simulated brain.  The latter is self-contained and the consciousness
> that is instantiated is relative to that world.  It is inaccessible from
> this world and might as well be the rock that computes everything.
>
> > from an infinity of (shared) computations. It emulates all
> > consciousness only in a trivial sense. It is only an object in our
> > sharable experience. Mind and matter emerges in a non trivial sense as
> > internal self-measurement or self-observation possible. Consciousness
> > is not even supervenient on a "brain". (directly from MGA).
>
> But that is dependent on the assumption that the MG instantiates a
> consciousness.  I think a consciousness is relative to an environment;
> and the consciousness that the MG would instantiate is not one relative
> to us and our environment - whereas what the doctor proposes to put in
> my skull is.
>
> Brent
>
>
Not sure if I follow your wording .  The wording appears to be not
consistent with your prior statement. Would the altered wording below
be what you are meaning or have I got it wrong?

But that is dependent on the assumption *that consciousness is an
instantiation of MG*. I think a consciousness is relative to an
environment; and *the MG that the consciousness would instantiate* is
one relative to us and our environment - whereas what the doctor
proposes to put in my skull is.

Thanks for this and your prior astute and stimulating postings.


>
> > The reversal makes the rock argument non sensical in the comp frame.
>
> > It seems to me that you just put some doubt on comp, not on the fact
> > that if comp is correct physics is not fundamental but is one of the
> > modality of (arithmetical) self-reference. I doubt that Stathis use
> > the rock argument against comp.
>
> > Bruno
>
> >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
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