On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
>>Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent
conscious being but can't emulate a desk?
> I am not saying that. I am saying that the desk apparent
localization has to be explained in taking into account the non-
localization of your consciousness.
I don't see the problem. Having consciousness means among other
things the ability to think about stuff, so you can think about your
hand and you can think about your desk and you can think about your
hand interacting with your desk.
Assuming that you can localize your consciousness in such a way that
your thinking fit some reality, but as you agree that consciousness is
not localized, how do you do that?
If you assume a level of digital substitution, and do the math, that
is not a simple problem.
>>> If your consciousness is not localized, and perhaps supported by
many other computations (in a physical universe or in arithmetic)
you need to explain why the object of your desk appear to be made of
local matter
>> Because the desk subprogram was written to appear that way to the
John Clark subprogram;
> By God?
By evolution.
OK. But evolution needs comp, and indeed bet on duplications and
digital dialoguing relatively to a quantum field (say).
But with comp it remains to explain how the laws of physics "evolved"
from all arithmetical machine points views.
> who?
The correct question is not who but what. God is the supreme being,
and a being is conscious, and I don't think consciousness had
anything to do with the ultimate emergence of life from non-life, or
of something from nothing. So even if there is a God He is just as
mystified by these deepest of questions as we are.
God's Mother might know better, then.
> and why?
Because subprograms (like the John Clark subprogram) that interacted
with other subprograms (like the desk subprogram) and produced a
feeling of local matter were better at not getting erased and better
at reproducing than programs that just ignored other subprograms.
> Evolution?
Yes Evolution.
> How evolution, here and now, could localize your consciousness/
desk relation?
Because animals (or subprograms if its true that our world is
virtual) that don't localize their head and their desk tend to bash
their head in on their desk destroying their brain as a result. And
an animal without a brain (or that bit of code if you want to look
at it that way) will have much less reproductive success than a
animal that DID localize its head and desk and thus avoided a head/
desk collision. An animal that localized objects would still have a
fully functioning brain, one that didn't wouldn't.
I basically agree. But the problem reappears below our substitution
level. Physicists use an brain-mind identity implicitly when using the
physical laws to predict their subjective experience, but our
consciousness is delocalized in all the infinitely many computations
raising our local computational states.
That's an interesting problem, because it would explains the origin of
the physical realities (intelligible and sensible).
>> he could even ignore the laws of physics if he wished and use
Aristotelian physics, or road runner cartoon physics.
> That is part of the problem.
I still don't see the problem. The laws of physics that animals
believe in have also undergone a selection process, the laws of
physics that we intuitively feel to be true are those that maximize
our reproductive success. That's why Quantum Physics feels so alien
to us, life on the African savanna where we evolved was far from the
quantum world, so a animal that found Quantum Mechanics to be
intuitively obvious would enjoy no increased reproductive success.
OK. Note that some of our descendent might accept quantum digital
brains and develop some possible quantum intuition. Studying quantum
computation theory can help also. And with Everett, that is pure QM,
there is no more conceptual problems (apart from the fact that we must
continue the work up to the sigma_1 complete part of arithmetical truth.
You understand that your consciousness here-and-now is not localized.
In fact it is not localized among an infinities of computations going
through that states at or below the right substitution level.
> Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA,
As I've said many times I started to read your "proof" and stopped
only when your errors became so egregious there was no point in
continuing.
In your dream.
On UDA you never complete the step-3 thought experience. Once
duplicated, you go out of your body, and never get back. You just stop
to reason, and abstract from the 1p/3p distinction.
On AUDA, well, have you find something wrong? Then show it.
Bruno
John k Clark
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
