On 2/28/2012 3:35 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Stephen P. King<stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 2/28/2012 10:46 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
When we are dreaming we are in a higher level relative
emulation (all UMs can do that).
That's confusing. I find it hard to believe a bacteria can dream. The
UM implemented by a bacteria could *potentially* run any program, but
it is *actually* running the bacteria program. To suggest that
bacteria (e.g. one of the class of "all UMs") can dream by virtue of
being definable as a UM generates more confusion than clarity.
Put another way, if a particularly instantiated UM possesses the
ability to dream (to imagine), then that says something non-trivial
about the constitution of that UM's cognitive architecture.
If a bacterium is a physical system capable of implementing a universal
Turing machine aka the particular bacteria's program, then Bruno's argument
shows that it will necessarily be able to dream, for what are dreams if not
alternative TMs running on the same hardware via dovetailing?
Dreaming in the context of Bruno's remark means that the running of a
single program could result in alternate 1p realities being
constructed... not that multiple programs could be run in the UM. At
least, that's how I interpret it.
How does the running of a single program generate different content
(in the sense that the program is equivalent to a virtual reality
generator) unless it is a dovetailing of many programs? Is this how you
get a many = one situation for programs? This makes no sense. AFAIK, 1 =
1, many = many. many =/= one. Or is my mathematical knowledge faulty?
A bacteria is a universal machine in that it can potentially run any
program. However, bacteria as they appear to us run specific programs
(as selected by evolution). Their instantiation as such is a stable
measure relative to us - the shared 1p plural reality. Bacteria that
run programs capable of dreaming (as above), while possible, would
probably count as white rabbits.
Could you tell me this explanation in your own words, particularly
what "the shared 1p plural reality" is. I truly do not comprehend this
concept as you are using it here. How is 1p content sharable by a
plurality of entities? AFAIK, any experiencial content that is
"sharable" by a plurality is 3p, in other worlds content that we all
agree on as being "real" and having such and such properties is the
definition of "objective reality".
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