Brent: why should "spiders" (etc.) be 'not conscious'? BTW what is your take on "conscious"? I have no idea myself, because I consider "everything" an 'observer' that tackles info about anything - and the brainfunction(?) invoked by many for conscious processes lacks the connection in our present scintific catasters (measurements?) to topical contents (distinctions). When I have to speak about 'consciousness' I have a different meaning in mind from 'being conscious' (an elusive term). Ccness means in my vocabulary the 'response to relations'. A process.
John M On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/20/2014 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 21:49, John Mikes wrote: > > Stathis: > you wrote Aug.19: > > *"What we know is that the brain can generate consciousness. The brain > is not a digital computer running a program, but if it can be simulated by > one, and if the simulation is conscious, and if the program can be "run" in > Platonia rather than on a physical computer, then every possible brain's > consciousness will necessarily be instantiated. I'm not sure whether > self-referential computations on their own are conscious - that would seem > a further assumption on top of the three mentioned in the previous sentence > - even though it does seem more elegant than simulating klunky brains.* > > Let's skip the question of defining Ccness (maybe broader than BEING > ccous) and let me ask HOW do you know that the brain can generate 'it'? Do > you have a brain that never had 'it' and followed a process BY it(!) > generating Ccness? > Those experiments in which computer etc. (NOT some 'brain'-input) > 're-started' the process were all carried out on (live?) "brains" > previously capable of doing it (whatever). > I agree that "*The brain is not a digital computer running a > program,...". * > Are ALL details of the so called "brain"(function?) mapped and correlated? > Are all facets of 'brain' even knowable? we think we know some. Then newer > items are detected (or thought so) and included smoothly into the previous > setup. > IMO we are far from being able to 'simulating' a human brain in its > entirety. > > > > And we will never know if we can do that, but indeed here we can't know > much. yet some people will accept, in the future, such artificial brains, > and the rest is a question of rights. The question will never be does it > work, some people will have the religion that it works, and that it is > handy to explore the Solar System at the speed of light. > > The only real question is "do you accept that your daughter or son > marries a partner who get an artificial kidney, heart and brain". > > We cannot know, but we can make bet. Also, we don't know any laws in > nature which is not computable, so your attitude is more a speculation on > some unknown things to prevent testing a possible, and plausible from the > 3p evidences, facts. > > We cannot know our level of substitution. > > Something like this is possible. The first immortal person, in the > technological relative sense (pursuing the Samsara), will be copied only at > a rough incomplete description of her cortex. Then it will take her 5224 > years to recover some stable sense-full life, recover smell and genuine > vision, and it will take her another millenium to overcome the amnesia. > > We will never know, John. > If true, we can't know it. > But people will bet on level, and that's what we always do. Then we can > make the bet precise and deduce consequences, and ask for consistency of > the set of beliefs. > > Plausibly the mobile will get in the ear and in the yes and then in the > peripheral nervous systems, the cerebral stem up to the cortex, if we made > a lapse on the next millennia. > > Many humans will refuse, and it is their right, but others will make the > jump. At their risk and peril. > > > I think long before that people will be "uploaded" to computers where they > will live on (as much as they can afford) in virtual realities. This will > be paid for by their children and relatives who wish to keep them "alive" > so they can converse and reminisce with them. I think it could be done now, > although crudely. One could assure clients that the well known logician, > Bruno Marchal, has shown that the "uploaded" person is conscious. No need > to mention that by his measure spiders are also conscious. :-) > > Greg Egan envisioned such a future in "Permutation City". I once wrote a > one-act play on that theme, which sadly I have not gotten performed. > > 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. > -- 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.
