2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <[email protected]>: > On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, as I understand it that's the argument. It's consistent with >> Platonism. A computer program's execution written out on paper is just as >> much a calculation as a lot of transistors switching. >> > > So is the idea to show that a recording is just as conscious as the > original calculation? > >> >> My caveat is that neither of them is conscious in THIS world because >> being conscious requires being conscious OF something. An isolated, pure >> consciousness is an oxymoron. Consciousness only exists as part of >> thoughts and thoughts only have meaning by reference to an external world >> and potential action in that world. >> > > I am under the impression Bruno gets around that by potentially allowing > the environment to be simulated as well. Or contrariwise, can't all the > inputs to the conscisouness be provided as though it was in the world? (as > for a brain in a vat for example. I mean hypothetically, and to simplify > the argument, not as a general model of consciousness.) > > > Yes, he casually dismisses the objection by saying we'll just include the > environment too. But that's my point that it's then no longer a new > radical result. It's just saying that if you simulate a world it can > include conscious beings who are conscious of that world. But IN THAT > WORLD their substrate is not inert - even if it's inert in our world, e.g. > consider the novel "Mody Dick" being simulated in a computer. To Ishmael > and Ahab in the computer they'd be conscious and experiencing the hunt for > the white whale. And, according to Platonists, they are as printed on the > page too. > > If the world is a computation, conscious part of it are subprogram that can be isolated by definition... now that when they run, for their consciousness to have meaning they must be fed input that have meaning to the conscious subprogram is a tautology...
Also, the MGA *never* assert that the consciousness simulated is conscious of *our* world (as it is obvious it can't be as it isn't fed inputs from our world)... it only assumes that you're running a program who is thought to be conscious (simulating a conscious being) and shows that if you accept that, and you accept the supervenience thesis and so accept that it is conscious in virtue of running in bare matter, you have to accept that the same stream of consciousness supervene on the projection + broken gate. Regards, Quentin > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
