Hi Bruno Marchal 

Anything that the brain does is or could be experience.
For computers, experience can only be simulated because

experience = self + qualia


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
10/24/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 


----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-24, 07:37:32 
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p 


On 23 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote: 

> Hi Bruno Marchal 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>> 
>> ROGER: OK, but computers can't experience anything, 
>> it would be simulated experience. Not arbitrarily available. 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> ROGER: Simulated experience would be objective, such 
> as is given by the text of a novel (knowledge by description). True 
> experience is the subjective experience of the mind --knowledge 
> by aquaintance. These are obviously substantially different. 

The term silulated experience is ambiguous, and I should not have use.  
I wiuld say that by definition of comp, simulated experience =  
experience. 




> 
> BRUNO: You are right, it is not the material computer who thinks,  
> nor the 
> physical brains who thinks, it is the owner (temporarily) of the 
> brain, or of the computers which does the thinking (and that can 
> include a computer itself, if you let it develop beliefs). 
> 
> ROGER: I don't think so. 
> 
> The owner of the brain is the self. 
> 
> But although the owner of a computer will have a 
> self, so would anybody else involved in creating 
> the computer or software also have one. 
> 
> Are trying to say that I or anybody else can cause 
> the computer to be conscious ? 

No. Only the computer, or a similar one. Actually *all* similar one  
existing in arithmetic, in their relative ways. 




> If wave collapse causes 
> consciousness, there are objective theories of wave collapse 
> called decoherence theories which seem more realistic to me. 

Decoherence needs MWI to work. 



> 
> But I can't seem to see how these could work on a computer. 

Right. the idea that consciousness cause the collapse of the wave (an  
idea which already refutes special relativity) is inconsistent with  
comp. 

Bruno 


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 



--  
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to