>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".
Good point. Thanks Bruno. A self-driving car does have an estimate of
its current state and then it updates it both internally and based on
external measurements. It also makes some planning, soft of what to do next.
Yet, if we consider a self-driving car and a rock from the viewpoint of
physicalism (or could be even better atomism), then the difference will
be much more difficult to find. After all there are in both cases
interacting electrons and nuclei (well probably some electromagnetic
waves as well) and nothing more.
On 29.12.2011 19:40 Bruno Marchal said the following:
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
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
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
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
Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru
-- 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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at