On 10/05/2017 3:28 pm, David Nyman wrote:
On 10 May 2017 3:04 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The computations underlying the conscious moment have, then, to
also compute the physics that renders the memories veridicial --
but that involves memories stretching back tens of years. An
awful lot of computations have to come together to make
consciousness that means anything. Making the probability in the
sea of random noise smaller and smaller all the time.
Sure, but probability of what and from whose point of view? Aren't you
continuing to think of this principally from a third person
perspective (actually merely an abstract "view from nowhere")? Yes,
from that impossible point of view there is no conceivable search
function that could locate the critical computational structures of
this sort; under this interpretation their measure is effectively zero.
Yes, am trying to understand the operation of the dovetailer as a
mechanism, and hence, from an external objective PoV. That is where I
find the measure to be effectively zero.
Nevertheless we know their presence is in fact assured by assumption.
It should be clear by now that I do not like this argument -- "The
theory must work because it has been assumed to be correct." But that
assumes that the pieces of the theory fit together without problems. If
I find problems in the "fitting together", then your conclusions are no
longer assured. A contradictory theory predicts everything.
In point of fact these computations have the recursive characteristic
of exploding into an infinite fractal​-like structure of extremely
high frequency (as Brent has recently put it) which would give them in
a certain and possibly critical sense a highly robust and non-trivial
structure.
I don't know what that means.
But the key point is that, on the basis of Bruno's theory of
computational subjectivity (again, implied by assumption of the CTM),
they must be *self-locating* from the first person perspective. This
is the key difference that would unleash the creative subjective
potential of the torrential output of the UD, as distinct from
Borges's merely alphabetical Babel which can only ever be a
zero-informational wasteland.
This just makes consciousness independent of the computations --
consciousness must exist first in order to self-locate on the
appropriate computations. IoW, consciousness gives rise to the
computations, not arithmetic -- or arithmetic is just a construct of
conscious beings.
But how can we assess "probability" in such a context? Very
controversial point as you know. Nonetheless, Hoyle gives us an
intuitive heuristic that allows us to think of this in what is
effectively a quasi-frequentist manner (i.e. the relative subjective
frequency of "encountering" any particular momentary perspective over
any finite segment of their abstract serialisation). This heuristic
has both absolute (in the first instance) and relativising (in the
second) self-sampling characteristics. If we think of it in something
like this intuitive way (which IMO is the absolute key to the
argument) then the justification of a measure assessed in the above
manner has to lie in the direction of understanding how and why the
"organised" threads of narrative subjectivity shouldn't be effectively
swamped in a sea of subjective chaos because of competition from
"pathological" quasi-narrative fragments. I've tried to pump our
collective intuition with various analogies to suggest why this
wouldn't necessarily be the case, to supplement Bruno's more rigorous
logico-mathematical argument. Hardly conclusive of course but the
intention is principally to encourage a harder look in this direction.
I don't really understand where you are coming from with Hoyle's heuristic.
The sea of pathological dross that must form the overwhelming but
fragmented majority of the "conscious potential" of UD* must somehow
be effectively​ suppressed from the perspective of the relatively
tiny, but mightily persistent and powerful narrative threads of
veridical consciousness (i.e. those that refer truthfully to an
externality that in turn explicates their perceptions of it, or what
we call physics).
If the UD has anything at all to do with consciousness, then it is clear
that physics must be entailed by exactly those calculations that entail
consciousness. That does not seem to be the picture that comes to me
from the UD -- the sea of chaos overwhelms everything. If consciousness
is to self-select from this sea of randomness, consciousness must
pre-exist the dovetailer, so the dovetailer itself becomes otiose.
Bruce
A pathway of least effort through the phase space of possible
subjectivity? Russell's solution to the possibility of an Occam
catastrophe that would sink this fragile vessel is simply to assume
that this physics is the unique requirement for its own observation.
Open problem, as Bruno would say?
David
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
