> On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:39 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> On 10/27/2015 3:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 28 Oct 2015, at 4:49 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> On 10/26/2015 11:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27 October 2015 at 16:57, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 27/10/2015 4:50 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>>> On 27 October 2015 at 14:22, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 27/10/2015 1:13 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 27 Oct 2015, at 12:15 PM, Bruce Kellett >>>>>>>>> <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 27/10/2015 12:05 pm, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Kellett >>>>>>>>>> <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/10/2015 10:52 am, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 26, 2015, Bruce Kellett >>>>>>>>>>>> <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > On 27/10/2015 8:16 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > On Tuesday, 27 October 2015, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> > 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, > > No, it just points out that "real" is a relative concept.
Yes - but it does away with the requirement for a *fundamental* real world. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
