On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the first thing to do when starting a Reductio ad >> absurdum proof is to make sure the conclusion really is absurd, and this >> one isn't >> > > > It may not be absurd, but its counter to the assumptions of the > experiment, that consciousness is the result of a computation. A recording > may be stored statically on a hard drive or other medium, it is not a > computation. > And as I explained subjectively it makes absolutely no difference if the same conscious AI program is run one time or run a trillion times, and it makes no difference if a recording of one of those computations is played back or is not played back, subjectively the end result of all those scenarios is exactly the same, one and only one conscious experience. > > Nor is it a computation if its smeared out over the dimension of time, > The conscious AI lives inside a simulated universe so if you ask when the consciousness occurred I can only answer when it occurred in relation to other simulated events in that simulated universe. This can be tested experimentally, have the AI consciously experience something then reset the program and have him experience it again, repeat this a trillion times if you like. Then ask the AI how many times he has had this conscious experience. I think he will say once. What do you think? > >> Because even a omniscient god cannot answer a question that isn’t >> really a question but is gibberish. >> > > I thought you were a believer in the logical possibility of fundamental > randomness. > Yes, I know of no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, and if you're satisfied with a random response to a question then let me just say this, dfhyu45hjdchksdfaqyu7834hsdghv9. >> So at the very start you've got to assume the existence of a physical >> universe and a very special type of physical universe. Does this mean >> physics is more fundamental than mathematics? >> > > >This is an intermediate step. The next step dispenses with the need for a > physically concrete Dovetailer implementation. > Please please please teach me how to make a calculation without using mater that obeys the laws of physics, I really want to know because I think it would be fun to be the richest man in the world. > Here's an example: Ask a man to compute 2 + 3, and ask a calculator to > compute 2 + 3. They both have the same output: 5, but very different > intermediate conscious states > I don't have any direct knowledge about the conscious state of the man or the calculator, but I do know that the man is making many many more calculations than 2 + 3 but the calculator is not. > a recording isn't a computation, That is very true, but as far as consciousness is concerned it wouldn't make one bit of subjective difference even if it were not.. 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/d/optout.
