On Mar 5, 1:50 pm, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
