On Mar 7, 6:29 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> 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 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