Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group... On Jun 6, 10:16 pm, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in > >> a deterministic computational framework? > > >> Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every > >> belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. > > > This is fatalism. By AR+Comp you will experience all possible experiences, > > perhaps an infinite number of times (recurring endlessly?). But this does > > not mean we are powerless to affect the measure of those experiences. A > > simple example: Some think that QM implies that in half the universes they > > put on the seatbelt and in half the others they don't. This is not true, if > > the person is conscientious enough they probably put on the seat belt in > >>99% of the universes. That depends entirely on them. A > > less safety-concerned individual may have the opposite probabilities. > > If the evolution of the universal wavefunction is deterministic, then > it doesn't depend entirely on them...it depends entirely on the > universal wavefunction. > > How could it depend entirely on them - using "depend" and "them" in > the usual senses of the words? You're not surreptitiousness using > "non-standard" definitions of words without making that explicit, are > you? > > Once the initial state of the wavefunction are fixed and the rules > that determine its evolution are fixed - then everything else, > including seatbelt usage, is also fixed. > > If anything depends on anything, *everything* depends on the initial > state and the rules that "govern" (describe?) how the state changes. > > In your example, they don't put on their seatbelt 99% of the time > *because* they are conscientious - rather, they are labeled > "conscientious" because they put on their seatbelt 99% of the time. > > See how the arrow is reversed there? > > > > > > > > > > >> Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe > >> it’s bad - but both the destination and the path to it are static and > >> fixed in Platonia. > > >> Further, nothing about computationalism promises truth or anything > >> else desirable...or even makes them likely. > > >> In fact, surely lies are far more common than truths in Platonia. > >> There are few ways to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be > >> wrong. If you think you exist in Platonia, then surely you also have > >> to conclude that nearly everything else you believe is a lie. > > > What is true in this universe may be false or meaningless in most of the > > universes, but there might be some things which are true in every universe > > (such as 2+2 = 4). > > It seems conceivable to me that you might have trouble convincing the > inhabitants of every (or even most) universes of that, even by appeal > to experience. > > Just set up the initial conditions correctly, and the state changes > correctly, and viola! A whole universe of people who have funky > beliefs that are reinforced by experience at every check. Or are > contradicted, but the contradictions as misinterpreted as > confirmations. > > Maybe that's us... > > Maybe my imagination is more vivid, or my checks on it less stringent. > > Have you tried imagining such a thing? Living in such a universe? > > As a spur to imagination: Have you read Jonathan Strange and Mr. > Norrell? The role of madness? The gentleman with thistle-down hair? > > > (I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be > > self-existent for there to be anything at all) > > Conscious experience. > > > > >> Can I change it? No. > > > Then why bother to get food when you are hungry? > > It's entailed by the brute computational structure of Platonia, I assume. > > >> Why 9/11, Auschwitz, AIDS, famine, bigotry, hate, suffering? They are > >> computationally entailed. > > > This is just reductionism taken beyond the level where it should be taken. > > You might as well answer: It is physically entailed, chemically entailed, > > biologically entailed, etc. I don't see the point of the argument. > > Hmmmm...I don't see how you could miss the point of the argument...? > > See above on seat-belts. > > >> Platonia actually sounds like more hell than heaven. > > > You base that on the small part of Platonia you have seen in your decades as > > a human on this remote planet floating through an infinitesimal part of the > > universe. Perhaps life in other alien civilizations is comparatively a > > heaven. > > Actually I would tend to think that the number of hedonists and > masochists in Platonia would balance each other. For every entity > that loves pleasure, there's another who loves pain. Just flip a few > bits, and there you have it - heaven transformed into hell, or vice > versa. > > >> Oh wait...maybe I can’t invent such a book, because I’m not a very > >> good writer, and people don’t find the structure of my fantasies > >> compelling or believable or interesting or useful. Rats. > > > My point was that mathematics has its own rules, it is not something where > > anyone can add their own arbitrary axioms as they see fit. > > I would tend that good fiction also has its own rules. At least > fiction that would be considered "good" by some particular audience. > > >> Well, according to you I shouldn’t feel bad. My failure was entailed > >> by the computational structure of Platonia. My efforts to achieve > >> success were...futile. > > > Who determines what song you choose to listen to on the radio (or music > > player), you or the atoms bouncing around in your brain? > > Neither. I'd say it's purely contingent. Not determined by anything. > > > As thinking beings > > we have a will which we can exercise. Don't let deterministic or > > non-deterministic theories of the universe tell you otherwise. > > Ya, I don't see how that could be. > > >> BUT...it’s just a story. There’s no absolute against which to judge > >> these stories, and so there can be no matters of fact except relative > >> to the stories. > > > So ultimately, where do these stories come from? > > Nowhere. They're purely contingent. Without any reason or > explanation whatsoever. > > >> No. Information is something that observers have. Observers are not > >> something that information has. > > > I agree. Observers are aware of information, and that makes them conscious. > > You say observers interpret information. Well explain what you > > mean precisely by interpret. > > I take interpret to mean "experience as meaningful". Which doesn't > mean that it *is* meaningful...just that it's experienced that way. > > I could go a little further and add "experienced as meaningful in a > way that connects to other beliefs." > > Though I'm not sure that's necessary. > > > I define interpretation as a system which may enter one of multiple states > > based on that information (information processing). This is different from > > information travelling through some pipe. The atomic elements of > > computation compare and contrast information through logical operations AND, > > OR, NOT, etc. > > There is only so much that can be done with information. Whatever your > > interpreter does with it, can be replicated by an appropriately programmed > > Turing machine. > > An appropriately programmed Turing machine can experience information > as meaningful? > > It could possibly interpreted as doing this...but given that there's > not much to a Turing machine, I'd have my doubts as to whether this > was actually the case. > > So, I take experience as fundamental, and work my way out from there. > > I'm not starting with an abstract concept like computation and trying > to work my way *back*. > > Computation is just a way of looking at things, a way of thinking > about things. It's not a thing in itself. > > >> Our positions are mirror images. > > >> Reverse the arrow of explanation, and you’ve got it! > > This still seems to be the case to me. > > >> But this doesn’t make much sense to me. There’s nothing in my > >> conception of particles or configurations or sequences that would have > >> led me to predict that combined they would give rise to something like > >> my conscious experience. > > > Lightly press on the back of your hand with your finger and spend a few > > minutes concentrating on the qualia of that experience. What more can you > > describe it as beyond the awareness of information? > > Consciousness experience is fundamental. Fundamental concepts can’t > be described in terms of anything else..they’re fundamental. > > This is why you can’t explain “red” to a blind person. It’s a > fundamental concept. If you don’t have it, it can’t be transmitted to > you or explained to you, because it can’t be “built up” from more > basic concepts. > > What do we mean by “communicating information”? When we use a word, > it just picks out an idea or a thought that exists in your mind. For > instance, out of all of the concepts that humans are capable of > thinking, the word “Red” picks out one of them. But nothing of the > experience of redness that is conveyed by the word “Red”. Just like > there is nothing of the idea of two-ness conveyed by the word “two”. > You already have to know about “two” to correctly interpret the word. > > No fundamental concepts are ever communicated via words. > > Let’s say I tell you, “I have a red cube that is 2 inches on a side.” > To understand that message, you must already have the fundamental > concepts of redness and of spatial distance and dimension and be able > to map the words I’m using to those concepts. > > Note however, that the concept of a “cube” is obviously not > fundamental…but fully grasping its meaning requires possession of the > fundamental concepts of spatial distance and dimension. > > So, I can communicate the meaning of “cube” to you because it isn’t a > fundamental concept…it’s defined in terms of spatial dimensions. > However, I cannot communicate the meaning of “space” or “color” or > “emotion” to someone who has no subjective experience of those > concepts, because they are fundamental. > > *That* is why qualia are ineffable. > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
