On 4 April 2018 at 10:21, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> 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 >> <li...@hpcoders.com.au> 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 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
