Sent from my iPhone
> On 28 Oct 2015, at 4:49 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 10/26/2015 11:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >>> On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On 27/10/2015 4:50 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>> On 27 October 2015 at 14:22, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 27/10/2015 1:13 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>>>> On 27 Oct 2015, at 12:15 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 27/10/2015 12:05 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Kellett >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 27/10/2015 10:52 am, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 26, 2015, Bruce >>>>>>>>>> Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > On 27/10/2015 8:16 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > On Tuesday, 27 October 2015, John Clark <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> so where does semantic content come from? >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> From examples in the physical world. You can give as many >>>>>>>>>> >> botanical definitions of the word "tree" as you want but it will >>>>>>>>>> >> just be a word defined by other words that are >>>>>>>>>> >> themselves defined by yet >>>>>>>>>> >> more words that are.... If you tried to dig for meaning all you'd >>>>>>>>>> >> find is a endless loop, it would just be a game where words are >>>>>>>>>> >> manipulated according to the rules of botany until somebody >>>>>>>>>> >> forgot about definitions and pointed to the ASCII string >>>>>>>>>> >> "t-r-e-e" and then pointed to a large photosynthesizing organism >>>>>>>>>> >> made largely of cellulose that exists in the physical world. Then >>>>>>>>>> >> even a martian would notice a correspondence between this game of >>>>>>>>>> >> manipulating symbols called "botany" that humans had invented and >>>>>>>>>> >> the way these large photosynthesizing organism made largely of >>>>>>>>>> >> cellulose live. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > What about a virtual world with trees and observers, and no I/O >>>>>>>>>> > devices connecting it to outside trees? >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > I think Brent answered this in his response to Russell. The trees >>>>>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>>>>> > ordinary physical world do not connect with anything outside this >>>>>>>>>> > world either in order to have semantic content. A virtual world >>>>>>>>>> > would be no different in this respect. >>>>>>>>>> > The point is that the content comes >>>>>>>>>> > from something other formal symbol manipulation -- things such as >>>>>>>>>> > pointing and sensory responses. There has to be something other >>>>>>>>>> > than the consciousness with which the consciousness can interact. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I take it you've never played video games. >>>>>>>>> Not with any regularity. But I take it that when you play such games, >>>>>>>>> you interact with the simulated environment via the provided >>>>>>>>> interface -- the game only interacts with itself in so far as the >>>>>>>>> original programmers designed it to. The semantic content is provided >>>>>>>>> from outside in either case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what do you think would happen if an AI, or uploaded mind were >>>>>>>> uploaded into a virtual reality that was fully disconnected from the >>>>>>>> physical world? Would that mind no longer be conscious? >>>>>>> Difficult to tell because, by construction, you can't ask it. But if >>>>>>> both the AI and the VR are programmed by some external intelligence, >>>>>>> semantic content might be provided in that way. >>>>>> >>>>>> But once programmed, there may be no further evidence of semantic >>>>>> content. The computer could be fired into space, and the programmers and >>>>>> their entire civilisation might die. If aliens find it and somehow work >>>>>> out the syntax, there is no way for them to work out the meaning behind >>>>>> it, since there is no intrinsic meaning in circuits turning on and off. >>>>>> So what is the explanation here: the meaning is still there because the >>>>>> long-dead programmers had thought about it in a particular way? >>>>> >>>>> Could be. If the program is no longer running, the meaning might not be >>>>> recoverable. >>>> >>>> >>>> The program is running, but the programmers and their civilisation are >>>> gone. How is the meaning recoverable? >>> >>> Not by the outsider, certainly. But to the insider......who can tell? It >>> depends on what the programmers originally built in. >> >> Then that means that there is meaning intrinsic to a certain pattern of >> circuits turning on and off. > > I take your meaning, but I think that's a misleading way of putting it. If > we are living in The Matrix then everything is patterns of circuits switching > on and off. Whether the is some meaning to that switching can only be known > by the programmer of The Matrix. But as denizens within The Matrix each of > us finds meaning in interaction with other parts of The Matrix. That > meaning is not intrinsic to the The Matrix, it's intrinsic to each of us as a > part of The Matrix. The subset of patterns that instantiates Brent within > The Matrix "understands" other parts of The Matrix by interacting with them. OK, but that removes the requirement that a computation must be a computation relative to the real world, which makes it difficult to place limits on what can count as implementing a computation, which I think leads to the idea that all computations are necessarily implemented by virtue of their status as platonic objects. -- 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.
