> On 28 Oct 2015, at 9:39 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> 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 <[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, > > 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 [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.
