On 9/26/2013 8:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 14:50, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    But I think this is a confusion.  Because computations have states and 
    corresponding to transition times between states people are tempted to 
    those states with states of consciousness and make an analogy with frames 
of film in
    a movie (hence 'the movie graph argument').  But there's a huge mismatch 
here.  A
    conscious thought has a lot of duration, I'd estimate around 0.02sec.  The
    underlying computation that sustains the quasi-classical brain at the 
quantum level
    has a time constant on the order of the Planck time 10^-43sec. And even if 
it isn't
    the quantum level that's relevant, it's obvious that most thinking is 
    and a computer emulating your brain would have to go through many billions 
    trillions of states to instantiate one moment of consciousness.  That means 
that at
    the fundamental level (of say the UD) there can be huge overlap between one
    conscious thought and the next and so they can form a chain, a stream of 

Forgive me, but I think this is a level confusion. The "moments" I'm talking about are whatever state transitions are required in the underlying computation (assuming there is one), not consciously perceived moments. If the comp hypothesis is correct there must be such a series of transitions, otherwise, there isn't (or need not be).

But then they aren't moments of consciousness and it's no longer clear how the closeness of another state can be measured if not by the content of consciousness.

    So there's a certain amount of "mini-death-and-mini-rebirth" going on every 
    in the normal process of consciousness (in this view). Deciding what counts 
as a
    continuation and what doesn't seems a bit ... problematic. (And of course 
there are
    many continuations from any given moment.)

    Not if there's nothing to overlap.  Sure there is, by some measure, a 
closest next
    continuation.  But when you're eighty years old and fading out on the 
    table, it's going to be another eighty year old fading out on some other 
    table.  I think someone has suggested that if you fade out completely then 
the next
    closest continuation could be a newborn infant who is just 'fading in'.  
Which is a
    nice thought - but is it you?

Yes, that has been suggested, I forget who by. I had a problem with whether it would be me or not.

Otherwise, the "problem" for me with QTI is, it's a ghastly thought that you might go on forever as a 80/800/8million year old, forever fading on operating tables.

It's worse than that. Read "Divided by Infinity" http://www.tor.com/stories/2010/08/divided-by-infinity


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to