On 3/5/2011 4:04 PM, Pzomby wrote:
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
*not*
one relative to us and our environment
The MG doesn't interact with our world. It doesn't take in an process
information or act.
- whereas what the doctor
proposes to put in my skull is.
The way I see it the MG consciousness would not be conscious of any
world except the virtual world of the MG, which is to say not conscious
at all in our terms. It could, provided enough environment and Bruno
emphasizes the UD will provide an arbitrarily large environment, be
conscious *in this other universe*. But I think that's Stathis's
example of the conscious rock. It's conscious modulo some
interpretation, but that's a reductio against saying it's conscious at all.
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.
