On 3/23/2015 5:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 4:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:48:52AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that one of the
possible substrates is inert matter, which seems so absurd that we should
conclude the matter plays no part whatsoever.
That sounds like Maudlin's Olimpia argument....?
So far I get that different substrates can create the same computational
states (by which I assume we mean the contents of registers and memory?)
But how does the MGA get from showing that to showing that inert matter can
be a possible substrate? (ISTM that a projected graph is not inert, if
that's the argument.)
Broadly, the idea is to use notion that movement is relative. If a
machine is moving through a fixed sequence of states, we can
equivalently set things up so the machine is inert, but the observer
moves in such a way that appearance is unchanged. The absurdity is
that this implies consciousness depends on the motion of the observer.
No, it doesn't imply any such thing. The motion of the observer, or rate of change of
the sequence of states, is irrelevant to consciousness. The only relevant thing is the
states themselves -- the rate at which they are observed (or even if they are static)
does not matter.
(if you are concerned that /some/ notion of time is essential, then it needs only that
time be encoded in the states in some way. No external time parameter is needed. See
Julian Barbour's book /The End of Time/)
Right. It's only order that it needed. But if this view is to be taken as fundamental
then it requires that there be some overlap between states in order to define the
sequence. Otherwise there's no inherent way to order them without assuming some known
dynamics, 2nd law, etc.
I am not sure I fully grasp what you mean by 'some overlap between states'. If you
follow Barbour's idea then each state is complete within itself -- containing a 'time
capsule' that gives the illusion of the passage of time. There need be no ordered
sequence at all between states -- at least if I remember Barbour correctly.
It's been a long time since I read Barbour, but I believe he uses the idea that state N+1
contains information from N, i.e. records/history. So, although the state is complete in
itself, in terms of information this is a kind of "overlap". Then hypothesizing something
like the second law provides an ordering.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
