On 01 Apr 2011, at 02:10, meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 03/31/11, Nick Prince<nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com> wrote:>Bruno
wrote
> With both QTI and COMP-TI we cannot go from being very old to
being a
> baby. We can may be get slowly younger and younger in a more
> continuous way, by little backtracking. We always survive in the
most
> normal world compatible with our states. But some kind of jumps are
> not excluded.
Hi Bruno
Maybe what I am trying to say is that very old or dying brains might
deterorate in a specific way that allows the transition from an old to
a young mind i.e. the decaying brain becomes in some way homomorphic
to a young brain.
Why not consider that it becomes homomorphic to an unconscious
brain? If your consciousness is a property of some bundle of UD
computations it does not follow that the most probable continuation
is also conscious.
This means that you will die in the most probable continuation (the
normal first plural one), but it is enough there is a few, less
normal, where you survive, for surviving from your first person point
of view.
This is why we put "& Dt" in Bp & Dt. To have a "probability" or a
"credibility" we ensure that we take into account only the
continuations where we survive.
A continuation where I die can only be conceived in the third person
perspective, but the surviving calculus bears on the first person
perspectives.
We already know that if you get hit in the head the most probable
continuation is unconsciousness for a time.
You cannot be conscious that you are unconscious. You can have a
conscious experience which makes you feel like if in some past you
were less or perhaps not conscious, that's all, and that might be a
construct of the actual mind. I do think we are conscious the whole
night, every night, even during the 'slow' (non REM) sleep, but we
forget that, and suffer of repeated amnesia (unless some training).
Bruno
Brent
Indeed this defines the consciousness I am
considering and is therefore subtrate dependent. If all of physics
can be simulated on a computer then no problem.
> If you accept the classical theory of knowledge, it is easy.
Computer
> are already conscious. They have not the tools to manifest their
> consciousness, and by programming them, we don't help them with that
> respect. Consciousness is not programmable. It exists "in Platonia",
> and a universal machine is only a sort of interface between
different
> levels of the Platonic reality (arithmetical truth).
This is an interesting comment! Are you saying that everything
including consciousness really emanates from platonia? Would you
agree that we exist eternally in platonia? If so then perhaps we need
only consider computationalism /QM as a means of comprehending the
steps to this understanding. This platonic realm is very useful but
hard to pin down as a concept.
Best
Nick
--
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
.
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
