On 23 Feb 2012, at 23:49, Terren Suydam wrote:

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 22 Feb 2012, at 23:07, Terren Suydam wrote:
Here was the "aha!" moment. I get it now. Thanks to you and Quentin.
Even though I am well aware of the consequences of MGA, I was focusing
on the "physical activity" of the simulation because "I" was running

Yes, that's why reasoning and logic is important. It is understandable that evolution could not have prepared us to the possibly true 'big picture", nor for fundamental science, nor for quickly developing technologies. So it needs some effort to abstract us from build-in prejudices. Nature, a bit like bandits, is opportunist. At the same time we don't have to brush away that intuition, because it is real, and it has succeeded to bring us here
and now, and that has to be respected somehow too.
Note that the math confirms this misunderstanding between the
heart/intuition/first-person/right-brain (modeled by Bp & p) and the
scientist/reasoner/left-brain (modeled by Bp). The tension appears right at the start, when a self-aware substructure begin to differentiate itself from
its neighborhood.

The fascinating thing for me is, if instead of a scan of Mary, we run
an AGI that embodies a cognitive architecture that satisfies a theory
of consciousness (the kind of theory that explains why a particular UM is conscious) so that if we assume the theory, it entails that the AGI is conscious. The AGI will therefore have 1p indeterminacy even if the sim is deterministic, for the same reason Mary does, because there are an infinity of divergent computational paths that go through the AGI's
1p state in any given moment. Trippy!

Yeah. "Trippy" is the word.
Many people reacts to comp in a strikingly similar way than other numerous people react to the very potent Salvia divinorum hallucinogen. People needs
a very sincere interest in the fundamentals to appreciate the comp
consequence, or to appreciate potent dissociative hallucinogen.
I should not insist on this. Some would conclude we should make comp
illegal. Like "thinking by oneself" is never appreciated in the neighborhood of those who want to think for the others, and control/manipulate them.

As wild or counter-intuitive as it may be though, it really has no
consequences to speak of in the ordinary, mundane living of life.

Not direct. But it might help to adapt our mentality. It reminds us of many of our possible prejudice, even of comp is revealed false one day. And then it will help in fundamental physics, which can also have indirect repercussion. It can change also the conception of death, and that has always repercussion on life, for the best and the worth.

paraphrase Eliezer Yudkowsky, "it has to add up to normal". On the
other hand, once AGIs start to appear, or we begin to merge more
explicitly with machines, then the theories become more important.

Yes, and no. Fundamental theology is negative. It will just warn to people to be cautious with their "Gödel number". better to encrypt them, perhaps quantum mechanically, because if you lost some of your number, you might be reconstituted in unexpected places. It warns also on the difficulty and difficulties of afterlife, and some of them will depend on our ability to transmits values to our descendants.

Perhaps then comp will be made illegal, so as to constrain freedoms
given to machines.  I could certainly see there being significant
resistance to humans augmenting their brains with computers... maybe
that would be illegal too, in the interest of control or keeping a
level playing field. Is that what you mean?

When liars take power, nothing free is legal, and prohibition rules. It never works on the long run, but people can make enormous benefits in the short run. Prohibition is a gangster technic to steal everybody, by selling fears and lie. It is made possible by that mentality which makes some human accepting that other humans can think for them in the matter of their own happiness. It is the case of many (pseudo) religion and medicine. We have to separate church and state, but also health and state, that's possible with simple and reasonable laws, but the manipulators hate all this.

When a government steals your money, it does not like some much that people can think. Not talking about thinking machine, which for them can only be a sort mexicans or something. I mean a foreigner.

The unavoidable tension between freedom and security will always incite the fear selling business, so that freedom asks for perpetual vigilance and resistance, out of the net and on internet, actually.

Prohibition can never work, unless you send *all* universal numbers in camps. Concretely, starting from a rich position, prohibition always works for some time, because its hidden goal consists in managing untaxed underground mafia economy, not to, prohibit anything, just to sell them uncontrollably to the kids ...

But we might go out of topic here ...



This I disagree with (or don't understand) because if we acknowledge
that as you said "even just one emulation can be said involving
consciousness" then interacting with even a "single" Mary is an
interaction with her "soul" in platonia. I think the admission of any
zombie in any context (assuming comp) is a refutation of comp.

You are right. That's why I prefer to say that comp entails non zombie. But let me give you a thought experience which *seems* to show that a notion of zombie looks possible with comp, and let us see what is wrong with that.

Let us start from the beginning of MGA, or quite similar. You have a teacher doing a course in math (say). Then, by some weird event, his brain vanishes, but a cosmic explosion, by an extreme luck, send the correct information, with respect to that very particular math lesson, at the entry of the motor nerves interfaces to the muscles of the teacher, so that the lesson continue like normal. The students keep interrupting the teacher, asking questions, and everything is fine; the teacher provides the relevant answers (by luck). Is the teacher-without-brain a zombie? At first sight, it looks like one, even with comp. He behaves like a human, but the processing in the brain is just absent. He acts normal by pure chance, with a very small amount of
peripheral interface brain activity. So what?
Again, the solution is that the consciousness should not be attributed to the body activity, but to the teaching person and its logically real genuine computation (distributed in Platonia). The "concrete brain" just interfaces the person in a relative correct way, unlike the "absent brain + lucky cosmic ray", which still attaches it, in this experience, but by pure luck. In both case, with "real brain" or "without a brain", the consciousness is attached to the computations, not a particular implementation of it which in
fine is a building of your mind itself attached to an infinity of

We might say that the teacher was a zombie, because he has no brain activity
at all, but then we might say that even with a brain, he is a zombie.
The comp plausible truth is better described, as you say, by negating the presence of a zombie, by attributing the consciousness to the abstract person, be it interfaced with a counterfactually correct brain or by a lucky accident. Obviously, in practice, a relatively counterfactually correct machine will, in general, be much more efficacious in implementing, on "earth" the consciousness of the person, which is in Platonia- Heaven, than a cosmic explosion which needs an unaffordable amount of luck to succeed.


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