On 3/10/2011 6:47 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*From:* Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:39 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: Movie cannot think
On 3/10/2011 7:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*From:* Andrew Soltau <mailto:andrewsol...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:47 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: Movie cannot think
On 09/03/11 16:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
The appearance of change is already explained by the fact that there
are different frames that have an implicit sequence and in which the
observers state is different. Further "explanation" is just
muddying the picture - at leas that's what Deutsch et al would say.
by saying that the frame of reference is changed, f
But this is no more than a magic finger pointing to the frames and
saying, "This one. And then this one. And then...."
Which is what one seems to be experiencing.
snip
[SPK] One thing must be considered: There are more that one
possible sequence of observer states. Not only are we considering
all possible frames for a single movie but the frames for every
possible movie too, even the ones that are pure noise! All of
them will be equally co-present in the heap and there is no a
priori bias for one over another.
The magic finger is a figure of speech of something that
selects one of them: how is the one that is “actually
experienced” selected? I propose that a mutual constraint
methodology such as what has been proposed as a solution the the
concurrency problem in computer science may answer this. But this
possibility seems to be a bit outside of the light of the
lamppost under which we currently are looking for the answer...
Onward!
Stephen
Actually I think this picture of observer states as being like frames
of a movie is misleading. What we could identify as an observation or
an experience, overlaps with preceding and succeeding observer states
and this provides an explicit order. Bruno's idea of digital
simulation by a Turing machine, which has idealized discreet states,
can only work at a much lower level so that a momentary "experience"
corresponds to a very large number of simulation states.
Brent
**
[SPK]
But exactly how is the overlap (and underlap) determined? We are
leaving something out here! We cannot treat objects that have variable
information content as just another case of fungible tokens! When we
do this we are completely eliminating the notion of meaningfulness.
There is a difference between a frame that depicts a deer and fawn
feeing in the forest and a frame that shows the screen of a TV set to
a non-existing channel, but if all we are considering are the frames
as objects we have no means to determine the sequence of frames.
We do if they overlap. Of course if we consider "frames" at a very low
level then they don't overlap - but then they don't depict much of
anything we'd recognize either.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
