On 29 Dec 2011, at 18:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 29.12.2011 16:48 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 28 Dec 2011, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:


Another question would be if such a car could be considered as an
observer in quantum

I don't know whether it's a Lobian machine or not; I guess that
depends on its program. But I'm pretty sure that being a big
macroscopic thing with lots of degrees of freedom and interaction
with the environment it will "collapse" wave functions.

Yes. From its first person point of view. It is a good idea to put
"collapse" in quotes. But I am not sure it needs to be macroscopic
for "collapsing" the wave. It needs to be macroscopic only for making
a de-collapsing impossible in practice. If information leaked to much
in the environment, we can no more erase it, and get back to the
initial pure state. But if QM is correct, even a black hole cannot
erase information, and that seems to explain some observable black
hole feature.

Well, some time ago Rex posted a quote about the rock:


In this respect, a question would be what is the difference between a self-driving car and a rock. Both have a lot of degrees of freedom and both interact.

Bruno, what do you mean by the first person view? Does a self- driving car has it? Does a rock has it?

In the UDA, a first person point of view is described by the content of its personal (but still sharable in some sense) diary. In AUDA the first person discourse is defined by what is both justifiable and true (it is a notion of rational knowledge, but it can and must be extended to inferable and true in some self-transforming context).

So a self-driving car is probably much more close to have a first person view than a rock, especially if you make it possible for the car to memorize its short term instances of computation (sensing, planning, etc.) into a "long scenario involving herself".

The singularity point here will be when self-driving car will drink alcohol and do crazy irresponsible moves on the road to impress other cars.

The rock? It is not even an object, with comp, but a stable pattern in a continuum of computational histories, that you don't have to reify. *IF* you reify them, you might say that a rock is composed of infinities of universal machine histories, including all universal dovetailing, and it that sense the rock instantiate consciousness, but even in that case, it does not make the perceptual rock object into a person.

I more or less agree also with Chalmers' conclusions.The physical rock (if we knew what that could be) is not known to physically implement arbitrary complex computations. There is a statistical repetition in rock and crystal which prevent turing universal grow. Consciousness seems to incarnate person relatively to us only near in-equilibrium.

We might miss something about rock, of course. May be some rock are alien disguised into rock, but then it is up to you to show me their personal diaries. Are there still rock also?

Without unifying gravitation and the quantum; we can only say that we still don't know what a rock is, and there are no evidence, in the common everyday sense, for seeing a rock like a person (despite the strong and perhaps deep poetical appeal of the idea).

Some Penrose pavements have a Turing universal grow, and they seem to hide interesting von Neumann algebra. So I would already be far more cautious with enough big quasi-crystals, and a long time ago, I thought understanding that some star might collapse into exotic quantum state of matter through elaborate internal quantum computations. So to negate consciousness to some "outside body like object" is always difficult, but in practice, we are interested only in the doing or the possibility of sharing experiences with some other. can we share something with that entity?

And with comp, the situation is worst. That's sharing is all we have. And we have to derive what matter is from that first person sharing, and explain what that unification of physical laws is all about, if even possible, to have an idea of what a rock is.

In fine, the real question is do you accept your daughter marry a rock? Does rock feels pain and should we create a committee to defend the right of rocks? Can rock votes? It is more easy to understand that this might make much more sense for the elaborate self-moving machines of some futures, than for rocks. ... Self-driving cars rocks :)



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 .


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