On Mar 8, 12:46 am, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 3/7/2011 4:15 PM, 1Z wrote:
> > 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.
> Up to a point.  But if the faking deviated very far from perceptions of
> this world the BIV would no longer be able to process them.  We casually
> talk of "white rabbits" on this list, which are perfectly understandable
> things and are really of this world (e.g. in Walt Disney pictures).  But
> they are just tiny derivative, deviations from reality.  Even things as
> real as optical illusions become difficult to process (which is why they
> produce illusions).  If your BIV was a human brain and was provided the
> perceptions of, say, a bird it would probably be unable to process them
> - it would be as cut off as if you provided white noise.  My point is
> that human brains evolve and learn in this world and it's the only kind
> of world they can be conscious of.  You can fiddle a little with inputs
> to the BIV, but unless your inputs are just variants on this world,
> they'll mean nothing.
> Brent

I think you can have gorss deviations from physics that are perfectly
easy to process
perceptually. In fact that is quite common in movie FX, games etc.
There is no
problem seeing a hovering rock.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to