On 4 April 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.
Ok, I see. I don't buy that first OMs have some special status. In my view it makes sense to sample each OM from all possible OMs in the universe. I think I am a block universe kind of person, and I think that the feeling of continuity that we have in our lives is illusory, in a sense. It's just that my current OM is a complexification of other OMs, and that is what memory is. I am OM-centric, not me-centric. > 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? What is the ASSA? > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.
