On 5/8/2014 5:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 May 2014 05:07, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 08 May 2014, at 00:35, LizR wrote: (By the way I think Max Tegmark does a good job of explaining what this means in his book, even if he doesn't get to the reversal. He says you need to assume a "capsule theory of memory" and talks about observer moments a lot, which hammers home the point that any given OM could be instantiated in a computer, in a Boltzmann brain, in arithmetic etc. In arithmetic? Or Platonia, or wherever it is the UD lives. (to me the term OM is ambiguous, and people confuses easily first person OM, which I think don't really exist or make sense, and third person OM, which are "just" relative computational state).OK, well this could get confusing then! I forget how Max Tegmark defines an OM in the book. I think probably fairly informally. It seems to me that if consciousness is somehow produced by computation then it has to have states and steps between them, and an OM might be a state. However I admit I don't know what an OM is, and some might say the brain operates on a 1/10th of a second cycle or similar, and hence an OM is quite a long time compared to the possible underlying computational steps.
And if an OM consists of a sequence of many computational steps, then there can be an overlap with preceding and succeeding OM as well as many other computational threads which are not "observer" (i.e. conscious) moments. In fact the word "moment" seems misleading since it suggests an atom of time or computation.
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 [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/d/optout.
