On Mar 7, 8:28 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 3/7/2011 12:01 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> But faking what?  Faking our kind of world - not just noise.  Then the
> BIV is conscious of our world.

That doesn't follow at all. You could fake something that
is highly organised (not white noise) but also unrelated
to reality. As such, the BIV is not conscious "of"
it, where "of" implies some sort of real object, because there
is no such real object.

> If it were just fed white noise it might
> be "conscious" of some other world the same way a rock may be conscious.
>
> 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.

Reply via email to