In another post, Glen mentions an application of the parallelism theorem to 2nd order privacy. I wish here to express caution wrt application of this theorem to questions of consciousness, private or otherwise. Because conscious experience (say in the sense of Tononi) may in fact be or contain fully-integrated and irreducible complexes, parallel-experience should be handled as a potentially very different thing than its serial cousin.
In some ways, what gives material life a foot up on simulated life is a sense of *maximal serendipity*. To a large extent, I feel that this is the central argument of analog-high-fidelity loving nerds. There is a recognition that functions (plural) may in-fact follow from form. In those fiery digital vs. analog debates, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that transistors are by their very nature, *analog devices*. They are chunks of matter influenced by the world at large. The function space for how such matter is influenced is likely non- enumerable, much less what can be done with such influence. The imposition that a transistor *behaves* digitally is an imposition demanding that the device act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited bounds. Consider, by analogy, the tails of aquatic mammals. Before they were tails, these appendages were evolved for walking. Later, they would be improved upon for swimming. Nature appears to work with what is readily at hand, and the space of possible functions is not likely to be concretely specifiable. To my mind, this is where the hypnotizing concept of a Turing test led the program to develop artificial life, astray. Here we set up a useless paradox. We demand that whatever system we design *forcibly* participate in our investigation. We demand that it *behave* like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have failed. Perhaps, my chair is conscious in-part because it, like the sadists, says no. I am not necessarily committed to this position about my chair, but I do think it points to the self-defeating nature of Turing tests. In another post, Merle emphasizes the importance of identifying transdisciplinary research. In particular, she mentions its connection to the *adjacent possible*. Whatever will one day be called ALife, will only be interesting if it is capable of exploring such a domain. In an effort to contribute to this program, I advocate for taking seriously ideas like embodiment and potential for serendipity. Given consciousness, the question of *How do we know? *maybe the least interesting path of investigation. I suspect that I am preaching to the pulpit, but I thought it fruitful to write down these ideas. Thank you for the space to do so. Jon
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
