On Mar 7, 6:29 pm, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/7/2011 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > On 06 Mar 2011, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> On 3/6/2011 5:07 AM, 1Z wrote: > >>>> 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 > > >>> I am not a fan of the MG specifically, but I don't see why > >>> you need a world to have consciousness "as if" of a world. > >>> The BIV argument indicates that you only need to simulate > >>> incoming data on peripheral nerves > > >> But how much of the world do you need to simulate to produce > >> consistent incoming data? and to allow the MG to act? I think a > >> lot. And in any case it is within and relative to this simulated > >> world that consciousness exists (if it does). The MGA tends to > >> obscure this because it helps itself to our intuition about this > >> world and that we are simulating it and so we "know" what the > >> simulation means, i.e. we have an interpretation. That's why I > >> referred to the rock that computes everything paradox; it's the same > >> situation except we *don't* have a ready made intuitive > >> interpretation. Stathis, as I recall, defended the idea that the > >> rock could, by instantiating consciousness, provide it's own > >> interpretation. I agreed with the inference, but I regard it as a > >> reductio against the rock that computes everything. > > >> The brain-in-a-vat is somewhat different in that it is usually > >> supposed it is connected to our world for perception and action. So > >> it can have "real" (our kind of) consciousness. > > > What about a disconnected dreaming 'brain-in-a-vat'? > > > Bruno > > If you actually took a human brain and put it "in-a-vat" I think it > would quickly go into a loop and no longer be conscious in any > meaningful sense. But even that case what ever it was conscious of > would be derivative from interaction with this world. If you "grew" a > brain in a vat, one that never had perceptual experience, you would no > more be able to discern consciousness in it than in a rock. > > Brent
Again , the point of BIV's is that they are fed fake sensory information -- 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.
