On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:12 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 8/26/2019 5:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/25/2019 6:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 8/25/2019 2:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 12:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/24/2019 9:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> > >>>> > The mind is a pattern distinct from any of it's physical incarnations. >>>> >>>> What does "distinct" mean in that? It's a distinction you make because >>>> you can think of a brain and processes of the brain as separate. Just >>>> like you can think of an automobile plant as distinct from the steps >>>> required to make a car. But that doesn't mean that a car can be made >>>> without any physical process. >>>> >>> >>> It is distinct in the sense that bits are different from electrical >>> voltages or scribbles on paper. >>> >>> >>> Yes and insurance is different from cash. So what? A bit is just a >>> physical thing that you choose to regard purely in terms of its >>> computational relations...we calll the "abstractions" for a reason. >>> >> >> Under your own definition of abstraction above, there is a distinction >> between a mind and a brain. There's not an identity relation between the >> two, as one discards unnecessary details. >> >> >> "Unnecessary" to what? >> > > The specification of the mind. > > > But you don't know that. You're merely assuming that a mind can be > specified without reference to a physical world in which it exists. > If functionalism is true, and if it's description is not infinite, then it can be. > > > >> >> As an abstract pattern, there's many physical incarnations that could map >> to the same mind. >> >> >> No. Because the mind is relative to the environment...including the >> brain. >> >> > What is the difference between information in the brain and information > that came from the environment being in the brain? From a computer science > perspective, I can tell you that where the input bits come from won't make > a difference in the evolution of the program execution. So whether the > bits were hard coded, generated by a random number generator, or captured > from a video camera makes no difference. From this would you predict that > one of these three cases would result in a non-conscious zombie? > > > No. But note that they all assume a physical world. > They don't unless you are operating under the assumption that computation requires a physical world. 1. Do you think a computer operated in a different universe with different physical laws could run a conscious emulation of your brain? 2. Do you think there are possible mathematical structures that are Turing machines? (which under your definition, would constitute "physical" universes, to any beings contained in the computation performed by the Turing machine) 3. Could the Turing machines in #2 be responsible for your present moment of awareness? (in the same sense as a Boltzmann brain might be) Jason -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUg2QNfWN_pax1sJfW_ce8%3DBByWDjj3g7nowsC4OGRcTbw%40mail.gmail.com.
