On 02 Feb 2009, at 18:20, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 31 Jan 2009, at 12:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ok then for the particular run I describe, the two programs (the
>>> original and the one modified by stub subpart) have the same
>>> states...
>>>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 2009, at 12:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Ok then for the particular run I describe, the two programs (the
>> original and the one modified by stub subpart) have the same states...
>> So for this particular run, we should still accept that the s
On 31 Jan 2009, at 12:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Ok then for the particular run I describe, the two programs (the
> original and the one modified by stub subpart) have the same
> states... So for this particular run, we should still accept that
> the stub modified program is conscious
2009/1/30 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 29 Jan 2009, at 20:42, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Why would the movie graph rule out a notion of *computational*
>> supervenience. We can keep comp and abandon materialism. We can still say
>> yes to the digitalist doctor, by betting on our more probable
>>
On 29 Jan 2009, at 20:42, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> Why would the movie graph rule out a notion of *computational*
> supervenience. We can keep comp and abandon materialism. We can
> still say yes to the digitalist doctor, by betting on our more
> probable relative computational histori
On 29 Jan 2009, at 16:29, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
>> So when do the AI becomes a zombie when I run it relatively to me ?
>> after how much stub subpart (I'm talking about function in a program,
>> not about a physical computer on which the said program is run) have
>> been repla
2009/1/29 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 28 Jan 2009, at 21:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2009/1/28 Bruno Marchal
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Quentin,
>>
>> > I was thinking about the movie graph and its conclusions. It
>> > concludes that it is absurd for the connsciousness to supervene on
>> > the movie hence p
On 28 Jan 2009, at 21:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> 2009/1/28 Bruno Marchal
>
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
> > I was thinking about the movie graph and its conclusions. It
> > concludes that it is absurd for the connsciousness to supervene on
> > the movie hence physical supervenience is false.
>
>
> O
On 28 Jan 2009, at 21:16, Pete Carlton wrote:
>
> What is wrong? In my opinion, it is that you are thinking that
> anything at all exists "in addition to" or "supervening on" the
> gates, or the movie, or the functions.
>
> I think you have a picture in your mind like this: let's say there
> are
Hi Quentin,
> So when do the AI becomes a zombie when I run it relatively to me ?
> after how much stub subpart (I'm talking about function in a program,
> not about a physical computer on which the said program is run) have
> been replaced ?
>
> Will answer more later.
Ok, have you looked a
Hi,
2009/1/29 Günther Greindl
>
> Quentin,
>
> you are, it seems to me, simply reproducing the MGA. You are assuming a
> (material) computer on which the AI+environment run - relatively to us,
No, I'm just assuming the program (for example written in java).
>
> this will never be conscious -
Quentin,
you are, it seems to me, simply reproducing the MGA. You are assuming a
(material) computer on which the AI+environment run - relatively to us,
this will never be conscious - but it _could_ be conscious relatively to
other computations in Platonia.
To make an AI conscious relatively
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my explanations, so I'll try to be clearer.
Let's suppose we have a "conscious" program (an AI), running in a simulated
environment.
Let us record the run of the environment+AI.
Then restore the state of the program just at the start of the record.
I can now select
2009/1/28 Bruno Marchal
>
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
> > I was thinking about the movie graph and its conclusions. It
> > concludes that it is absurd for the connsciousness to supervene on
> > the movie hence physical supervenience is false.
>
>
> OK. It is a reductio ad absurdo. It assumes that consciou
What is wrong? In my opinion, it is that you are thinking that
anything at all exists "in addition to" or "supervening on" the
gates, or the movie, or the functions.
I think you have a picture in your mind like this: let's say there
are two side-by-side computers, and let's say the one on t
Hi Quentin,
> I was thinking about the movie graph and its conclusions. It
> concludes that it is absurd for the connsciousness to supervene on
> the movie hence physical supervenience is false.
OK. It is a reductio ad absurdo. It assumes that consciousness
supervenes on the physical ac
16 matches
Mail list logo
