Lee: how would you relate to my generalization of the (non Shannon) information concept:
---- Acknowledged difference ---- where the acknowledgor is not specified nor is the nature of the difference ? (just 'deifferenc' is no information, unless absorbed into a pool of organized data, identity does not constitute information - unless compared with not-identity, to which it IS a difference.) It can range from a differential el. charge to a Shakespeare story. Cheers John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "EverythingList" <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:07 AM Subject: RE: What do you lose if you simply accept... > Stathis writes > > > I was using the term "information" loosely, to include what is commonly > > termed qualia, subjective experience etc. I agree that if a physical system > > is fully specified, then that is all you need in order to duplicate or > > emulate the system. The new system will do everything the original one did, > > including have conscious experiences. It's worth stressing this point again: > > you don't need any special, non-physical information to emulate or duplicate > > a conscious system; you don't need God to provide it with a soul, you don't > > need to purchase a mind-body interface kit, you don't need to meditate and > > wave quartz crystals around, and you don't need to have 1st person knowledge > > of its subjective experiences. All you need is a few kilograms of raw > > materials, a molecular assembler mechanism, and the data which indicates > > where each bit goes. Once the job is finished, you automatically have a > > system which talks, eats, and is conscious. Psychology and biology have been > > reduced to physics and chemistry. Consciousness has been shown to be just be > > an emergent phenomenon in a particular type of biological computer. Agree so > > far? > > Well, this is certainly all right by me---though hardly by everyone > here. You have described very well the ordinary reduction of humans > and animals to ordinary physical mechanisms, a view that was > widespread among materialists all through the 19th and 20th > centuries, even if they didn't have as much evidence as we do. > > > OK: having said all that, and assuming at this point that we know the > > position and function of every atom in this newly created system, I *still* > > would wonder what it feels like to actually *be* this system. > > Have you read Hofstadter's comments on Thomas Nagel's essay "What is > it Like to be a Bat?". (Most easily accessed in "The Mind's I" by > Hofstadter and Dennett.) And I presume that you're familiar with > Daniel Dennett's views on qualia, as in "Consciousness Explained", > but that you reject them? (I'm rather new to this list.) > > Lee > >