Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Actually mechanism as such seems to me to be just a >> metaphor, even though it may be trivially true if every computation >> [can] >> belong to every experience, which appears to be true to me (since >> experiences are inseperably connected as one movement of >> consciousness). > > ? We always survive from the 1p of view, regardless how we are substituted (this is also a result of COMP as far as I am aware of). The question is, how do we personally feel to survive, and this question has no mechanistically determineable answer (as 1p experience is not computable).
The question whether my ego self survives can also not be mechanistically determined, since it depends on what we identitify the local ego with and this question cannot be mechanistically determined (as it is a matter of taste or opinion). If I identify my ego with the computation 1+1=2, then I can survive in your pocket calculator, if I identify with some vague particular form of experience, we can't say whether I will survive, because my identification is too vague for that (I may still say "Yes, doctor", just hoping that some noncomputational component will naturally occur alongside the substitution). Therefore it is true that we, from the 1p, are related to all computations, in an uncomputable way, but also from the 3p we are related to all computations, in an uncomputable way, unless we fix the 3p to be purely computational (which won't help us much in the experiental/physical world, since here there are no seperable computations). Saying "yes" does, by the way, not entail that we do that, since our 3p identification may shift, or be noncomputational, regardless whether we expect to survive a substitution (your step 8 leading to the conlusion just works if we assume materialism, which we don't have to do). Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> What you call Plantonia, I would simply call the virtual realm, or >> the dream >> realm (avoiding mathematical connotations). > > By Platonia I don't mean anymore than the set of true proposition of > arithmetic. > With mechanism, we need only a tiny effective (computer generable) > part of it, which correspond to the UD's work. If we talk of Platonia, we take a mathematical 3p view, but I am talking about 1p experience here, that's why calling it Platonia would be misleading. Sure, we can take the 3p view that the experience comes out of Platonia, or comes out of Symbolia (the set of all possible strings) or comes out of "O"-tonia (the abstract realm of the letter O) but either way we are then not talking about the 1p point of view, the realm of experience, which I was talking about. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> There are probably also infinite layers of virtuality (advanced >> dreamers of >> the far [potential] future may have heavily nested dreams - dreaming >> to have >> dreamt to have dreamt ... to have awoken to have awoken and then >> awaking). >> Ultimately reality in the metaphysical sense encompasses both >> "virtual" and >> "real". > > "real" is an indexical. It is just virtual seen from inside. From > "God"'s view, those have the same nature, although the sharable dreams > are more persistent, and can relate to very deep (necessary long) > computations. I agree, I am just calling the more sharable dreams "real" and the less sharable ones "virtual", in accordance with the every day usage of "real". Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> You are reintroducing a suspect reality selection principle, similar >>> to the "wave collapse". >> The wave collapse is undoubtably real as a subjective phenomenon, I >> am not >> saying virtuality is objective. >> It is just a way to order experience. A virtual experience is one >> from which >> you awake into a more coherent one (without having to die). Virtual >> experience just start out of nowhere, but they also can be >> (relatively) >> started from normal reality. > > ? (not clear for me, sorry). The last sentence? I mean that a certain "virtual" experience may be already be experienced right now, but we can relatively start it by leaving our usual reality, experience the "virtual" experience and going back. This may be felt as entering (thus "starting" the experience) and leaving. It's like we didn't make a computer game, but we can start to play it. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/The-consciousness-singularity-tp32803353p32863888.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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.
