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
nothing
corresponding to transition times between states people are tempted to
identify
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
unconscious
and a computer emulating your brain would have to go through many billions
or
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
consciousness.
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
second
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
operating
table, it's going to be another eighty year old fading out on some other
operating
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
Brent
--
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.
