On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the
point of
view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some
theory. You can't talk like if you knew that this is false.
This is the retrospective view of consciousness that takes experience
for granted. How can experience itself be simulated?
The question is senseless. An experience is lived. never simulated,
neither by a computer, nor by a brain, which eventually are object of
thought, describing compactly infinities of arithmetical relations.
Hi Craig and Bruno,
If the simulation by the computation is exact then the simulation
*is* the experience. I agree with what Bruno is saying here except that
that the model that Bruno is using goes to far into the limit of
abstraction in my opinion.
I can have an experience within which another experience is simulated,
Never. It does not make sense. You take my sentence above too much
literally. Sorry, my fault. I wanted to be short. I meant "simulate
the context making the experience of the person, "really living in
Platonia" possible to manifest itself locally.
We can think about our thoughts. Is that not an experience within
another?
but there is no ontological basis for the assumption that experience
itself - *all experience* can be somehow not really happening but
instead be a non-happening that defines itself *as if* it is
happening. Somewhere, on some level of description, something has to
actually be happening. If the brain simulates experience, what is it
doing with all of those neurotransmitters and cells?
It computes, so that the person can manifest itself relatively to its
most probable computation.
There is a difference between a single computation and a bundle of
computations. The brain's neurons, etc. are the physical (topological
space) aspect of the intersection of computational bundle. They are not
a "separate substance".
Why bother with a simulation or experience at all? Comp has no
business producing such things at all. If the world is computation,
why pretend it isn't - and how exactly is such a pretending possible.
The world and reality is not computation. On the contrary it is almost
the complementary of computations.
Yes, it is exactly only the content that the computations generate.
That is why we can test comp by doing the math of that
"anti-computation" and compare to physics.
But, Bruno, what we obtain from comp is not a particular physics.
What we get is an infinite "landscape" of possible physics theories.
Bruno
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
