On 11/13/2015 5:27 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Saturday, 14 November 2015, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 11/13/2015 2:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:On Saturday, 14 November 2015, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: Here's an interesting essay by Scott that ends up with a somewhat more technical explication of my idea that consciousness requires a world or environment with which it interacts. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951 However, he doesn't notice that this also solves the problem of why we don't worry about being simulated in the digits of pi and what it means to be "physically instantiated". A lot of good comments too. Clever though it seems, there is no reason to accept the theory other than to support the prejudice that only certain types of entities can be conscious.Only those that experience an arrow of time. That seems like more than a prejudice. I can't imagine what consciousness without an AoT would be.He claims that irreversibility and unpredictability are somehow important in consciousness. But this isn't the prejudice, this is in order to justify the prejudice. The prejudice is that the various consequences of unfettered computationalism, such as that a consciousness can be non-destructively copied and that we could be Boltzmann brains, are obviously false.
You must not have read it. He concludes that Boltzman brains cannot be conscious. And he argues that non-destructive copying is physically impossible; although it appears he's assuming a very accurate copy is required.
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.
