meekerdb wrote: > >> And because of that, we can't assume that it only matters that the >> computations are being done, but it may matter how the computations are >> done >> and how they are being interfaced with the environment. >> One could define computer more narrowly to exclude input and output, but >> in >> this case a substitution is impossible, because without input and output >> a >> brain or body can't work. > > Yes, that's why I think the "level of substitution" might be a whole > universe. And there is no other to this universe, or something transcendent to it? This seems to be incoherent with Brunos conclusion, because the conclusion entails that not all of the universe can be digital. But if there is not other (or something trascendent to it) that provides input or that output is given to, the substituted universe could only consists of the computations.
[The following is not on this sub-discussion, but is more an extension of my first post about the consciousness singularity:] meekerdb wrote: > > Tegmark's argument that the brain is essentially classical only shows > that you could replace a brain with a digital computer IF you still have > the rest of the universe to interact with. Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially classical if we assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our "artificial" experiments. But it seems natural systems have a better ability to remain coherent, when it would be impossible otherwise (see photosynthesis). So it seems we can't rely on Tegmarks assumption. For me, it seems pretty evident now that there is something special to life after all in the way it relates to physical laws and in importance of the universe. It is just not plausible at all why the universe would be capable of self-accelerating evolution if there is no inherent drive in nature towards intelligence (not human intelligence, universal intelligence, capability of self-learning). Why would carbon be able to form all these complex bounds, and DNA be able to encode information in such a way that it is so extremely versatile and universal in its expression, and even more amazingly, why would it be working in such a way that at some point very small changes can have extremely large effects in terms of learning-capability (look at humans vs other animals). It is utterly and totally implausible that this is chance, or is a necessity that just happens to be good for intellignent life (why would it?). Granted, we can invoke the anthrophic principle, but then we are really granting that ultimately subjectivity shapes the apparent cosmos, which most scientist want to avoid desperately. Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for granted. But this is almost as unconvincing as saying "A creator God is just there, we have to take him for granted". It makes no sense (it would be a totally absurd universe), and there also is no evidence that natural laws are primary (we don't find laws to describe the Big Bang and very plausibly, there are none because it is a mathematical singularity). I think it is much much much more convincing (not to mention wonderful), that the universe is based on an inherent self-organizing, self-learning consciousness, the I/Self. It is the ultimate singularity (including the Big Bang singularity). It is self-evident, and self-explaining (through the evolution of the cosmos), and extremely simple (it is just Self) so it naturally needs no further external explanation. The only reason that this is not accepted is because the scientific community is predominatly dogmatically materialistic and based on scienticsm. It doesn't want something transcendent trans-scientifc, trans-rational, trans-objective as its base. But that it is just self-denial, because science always needs something beyond science to justify even its most fundamental premises ("the universe is basically lawful" for example) and to interpret results (eg QM). Once we take this possibility seriously many many difficult questions become much more answerable (even though of course there is always infinite ignorance about fundamental questions). Why is the universe so orderly? Because consciousness is, as everybody can observe for themselves, self-ordering through self-seeing. Why does its behaviour approximate laws, but is still not entirely predictable? Because natural laws are useful for consciousness to navigate the world and use it. Why is there life and why is the universe suited for life? Because the universe (multiverse) is already intelligent and uses life for further development towards even more intelligence. If the universe is intelligent, why does it appear so stupid and uncaring and unconscious oftentimes? It is not humanly intelligent, consciousness is not rational or moral or planning, it only sees its own order, which may be "stupid" from the persepective of humans, but still has its own intelligence (which lies in its simplicity). Consciousness does not belong to something and has no location, so we can't find consciousness in particular matter. What is the meaning of all of this? Self-meaning. Self-order. Ultimately leading to ever increasing, boundless insight, creativity and happiness. It's all we could ever wish for, and unimaginably much more. It provides a infinite richness of unlimited beauty that is so marvelous that our wildest imaginations of heaven (or the nerd equivalent the technological singularity) are not even a pale shadow of the truth and the real goodness of our future. What is the fate of the cosmos? Ever increasing self-order at ever greater scales and at ever greater efficiency, ever increasing unity, connection, diversity. Why can paranormal events not be easily verified scientifically? They aren't objective phenomena, the objective world is just a small aspect of consciousness - if we try to objectify them (get rid of subjective influences, like done in science) they largly vanish. If there is already infinite intelligence, why can't we really find it? It is not to be found in the objective world, and so it is hard for us as beings fixated on objects and external circumstance to get in touch with it. It will come naturally to us as we get more in touch with the reality of us being infinite consciousness. Is ther life after death? Life of consciousness is already eternal. Individuals are only different expressions of consciousness, not seperate beings. Why is there accelerating development? Because it lies in the nature of self-organizing universal intelligence to self-organize to self-organize better. How can the human problems be solved? They needn't be, consciousness takes care of itself, and as soon as we see that, the apparent problems become irrelevant. It is not luck that we survived that far, consciousness self-regulates to make sure important intelligent structures surive. If subjectivity is primary, why can't we simply transcend all physical limits and make ourselves happy? The universe doesn't care about individual transcendence or happiness, it needs physical limits to help order itself in a consistent (non-dreamy) way, until it learns to trascend the limits (which requires, among other things, universal cooperative behaviour among humans). What is our individual part in all of this? Naturally learn to recognize that we as individuals are just a part of the whole that we really are, and through this, learn to finally relax into our true infinite consciousness and be really free. It isn't so important what we do, the things go the way they do anyway. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/The-consciousness-singularity-tp32803353p32929793.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.