On Dec 17, 4:39 pm, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:26:21PM -0800, Pierz wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > The problem is even deeper than this, however. How does the system
> > ‘know’ when two locations should be bilocated? This works OK for a
> > single copy of Klara, since she is a static system. But if she must
> > physically interact with all the previous editions of herself further
> > back in the calculation chain, then she will be forced to ‘build’
> > pipes on the go, a ridiculously contrived procedure that totally
> > vitiates the idea of a mindlessly proceeding, inert system. And how
> > does Klara (or rather, Olympia) remember which path she has followed
> > in order to know which trough to drain? New mechanisms must be devised
> > which effectively mean retaining the activity of previous Klaras in
> > the chain and are no different from a form of backtracking.
>
> My understanding is that to construct Olympia, we take n copies of
> Klara, and run each copy to step i of the program, where i=1..n-1. The
> construct the sequence of water troughs such that they are equal to
> that of K_i at step i. We also connect K_i to Olympia at that point,
> ready to take over in the event of a counterfactual being true.
>
> I don't think the issue of pipes is a problem - we can assume each
> trough in state i is connected to the troughs of states i-1 such
> that when the armature moves through to state i, it closes a valve
> connecting the troughs to the previous state's troughs.
>
> It may seem complex, but it is mere complication, not complexity, if
> you understand the difference.
>
> > If Maudlin’s argument is a foundation of the UDA, then it seems to me
> > the UDA is on shaky ground, though I have yet to investigate the MGA
> > in depth. People talk about the Movie Graph Argument, but the links
> > provided refer to Alice and a distant supernova with lucky rays that
> > substitute for functional neurons. I don’t see a connection to the
> > idea of a recording or a filmed graph. Can someone enlighten me?
>
> Maudlin's argument has been compared with the MGA, which is step 8 of
> the UDA. The previous steps are independent of Maudlin.
>
> Olympia can be compared with a recording of the computation. That is
> the "filmed graph" (aka movie graph).
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
> Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

> Maudlin's argument has been compared with the MGA, which is step 8 of
> the UDA. The previous steps are independent of Maudlin.

I understand that, but all the steps are necessary to support the
argument. If consciousness supervenes only on physical computation,
then one requires a physical instantiation of the UD, not a purely
arithmetical one.

> My understanding is that to construct Olympia, we take n copies of
> Klara, and run each copy to step i of the program, where i=1..n-1. The
> construct the sequence of water troughs such that they are equal to
> that of K_i at step i. We also connect K_i to Olympia at that point,
> ready to take over in the event of a counterfactual being true.

Invalid because of the infinite regress problem. How can we run the
program on the individual Klaras without connecting them to the
Olympia in the first place? The Klaras cannot calculate anything
without the counterfactual mechanism of all the other Klaras ensuring
they don't go wrong. If all the Klaras have already been run somehow
so the troughs prior to the branch onto the active Klara contain the
calculated values then there is no need to run Oylmpia at all. The
state of the last Klara already contains the output of the calculation
and we can discard Olympia and just say that we already calculated the
value in the past. This makes a mockery of the entire elaborate
mechanism Maudlin postulates and the business about inert parts and so
on is irrelevant. I don't think that saying that a live calculation
can always be replaced by one that was completed in the past solves
anything. Certainly consciousness (or a computer) may draw on the
results of completed calculations in order to speed up its work (a
computer doesn't need to recalculate the value of pi every time it
needs that constant), but it cannot solve every problem that way,
obviously! A computer game may pre-render an explosion made by
computing hundreds of thousands of particles, as a shortcut, but it
cannot pre-render every possible game and just branch into the
relevant branch of that movie as required. Unless you grant it
infinite calculation resources in the past and none in the present, an
abject sophistry.

I can't find anything in Maudlin's paper that suggests the method you
propose - pre-running every copy of Klara as if it had dealt with all
prior counterfactuals. Each copy is merely another dumb Klara ready to
wrong the next instant. That is both essential to the argument, and
its fatal flaw.

-- 
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