> On 4 Apr 2018, at 10:21, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> Hi Russell, >> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Russell Standish >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> Now, is a jellyfish conscious? >>>> >>>> I bet they are, but not far away from the dissociative and constant >>>> arithmetical consciousness (of the universal machines). >>> >>> As I'm sure you're aware, I disagree with this. Jellyfish appear to be >>> quite simple automatons, with a distributed neural network, not any >>> brain as such. However, my main reason for disagreeing is that >>> anthropic reasoning leads us to conclude that most species of animal >>> are not conscious. Our most typical animal is a nematode (for instance >>> your favourite - the planarians), but even most insects cannot be >>> conscious either. >> >> I follow your anthropic reasoning, but am not convinced by the >> implicit 1:1 correspondence between one minute of human consciousness >> and one human of insect consciousness. I have no rigorous way of >> saying this, but my intuition is the following: there is more content >> in one minute of one than the other. I think it makes sense for the >> probabilities to be weighted by this content, somehow. >> >> Imagine a simple possibility: your anthropic reasoning being weighed >> by the number of neurons in the given creature. See what I'm getting >> at? >> > > My argument is simply that your first observer moment (ie "birth > moment", although not literally at birth) is selected at random from > all such possible moments. Thereafter, successor OMs are chosen > acording to Born's rule. Ant birth OMs are vastly more numerous than > human ones. A city of perhaps a million individuals lives under our > house, and ants are born, live an die far more rapidly than we > humans. > > To argue that OMs might be weighted somehow is quite close to the > ASSA, which I've never found convincing, though some argue for it here > on this list. Why should first observer moments be weighted by neuron number?
I agree, although I cannot make sense of “first 1p-observer-moment”, nor of a selection which would not be relative to the computations leading to such 1p observer moment, nor of invoking the Born rule before getting it from the “observable” self-referential viewpoints. But, yes, the weighting by neuronal number will not work in the absolute, although it does contrive the computations for the relative measure. Best, Bruno > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] > Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 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. -- 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.
