On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > It also appears to me that the computing entity would not be conscious for >> the same reason computed flight physics is not flight. >> > > I don't have the benefit of thinking about this for ten years, but it does > seem that there is a map/territory confusion here. Comp* is the idea that a > computer programme could be conscious. Simulated flight isn't real flight, > but (according to comp) consciousness can't be simulated, because it's > *already* the result of computations. > > *or comp1 if you prefer >
With respect I will refuse to buy into the jargon of this milieu. I don't care what comp-x or any other variant of it is. I care even less what a dovetailer is. Yet you have touched right on the very essence of the map/territory confusion. But it is even worse than you think. First consider A) The universe is a massive collection of interacting elemental primitives of kind X whose interactions could be characterised as a computation. Call it a noumenon. Underlying fabric of whatever it is we are inside. and B) A computer K inside A made by entities (us), also inside the set A, that is running and exploring a _model_ of a set of abstracted (by us) X. We in B you can look at the computer K and say: "*The universe A, made of X, is computing a computer K running a program that is an abstraction of A*". The computing of the computer by the universe A and the computing by K of the abstractions inside the program in the computer K are two *utterly different things *that are endlessly confused here. The entire 10 years discourse can be characterised as a group of people variously mixing A and B and never realising they were talking about different things while not even knowing which of A or B they are in AND ....it gets worse..... *in neither case were they speaking about traditional 'laws of nature'. **This is a second cockup. These cockups are factorially confusing. * In essence the study of the kind B is a different kind of science. It's not what traditional science, out here in the real world of Dr Colin science, does. B is a different kind of novel scientific enquiry/ epistemology that this list continually fails to recognise. What we do as *scientists *out here in the non-Everything-list world is *not *B. Instead we do something different....(C). We create abstractions that predict how (A) appears (in a scientist's consciousness ... as a scientific observer) when you are inside it (A) (made of X). These regularities in appearances are NOT the regularities depicted as B. We call C the traditional 'laws of nature'. A completely *different *kind of epistemology. Then, just to make everything *even more confusing .......* *.... *we scientists (C) then compute the abstract 'laws of nature' C, variously confusing them with the laws in B (= think C and B are the same epistemology), or completely miss B or shun B as metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. B and C are separate epistemologies. Their difference scientifically accounts for consciousness in the form of the scientific observer. So... One underlying unknowable (from the inside) universe A made of something. What that 'something' might be is what B explores. and *Two *sets of potential abstractions of A: B and C. B depicts/characterises what A is made of whereas C is what it *appears *like to an observer inside A (you know...atoms and space and stuff). Epistemology C makes the observer predictive of appearances and simultaneously completely fails to contact X or B and thereby does what has been happening for >2000 years... fail to account for (explain) the scientific observer. Here in this email form COMP argument, A and B *and* C are being endlessly confused with each other and mis-correlated in respect of consciousness. Neither a computed B epistemology or a computed C epistemology can be claimed conscious and this is testable. Careful: by 'computed' I mean computed by a computer made of X by us, also made of X. Yet, that which is conscious (certain organisations of X in A) can be understood as a form of computation! That does not mean that a computed version of that understanding is conscious. Nor does it mean that X is some kind of platonic realm computer running a program. You can nest this back, "The Matrix" style, forever and it's just a load of empty sophistry. Instead why don't we *solve the problem*. Sorry 10 years can make you grumpy. So really this is a *massive systemic *screw up. 3 layers A/B/C (a 'dual-aspect' epistemology) confused with each other AND with computed versions of 2 of them (B/C) AND that confused mess is then used to speak about consciousness at the level of each of the 3 confused layers. This discourse fails to realise that it is right at the juncture of the emergence of a new kind of science......The recognition and adding of B as a new distinct epistemology. That is what you are really doing here. This has been very hard to unpack. And unpacking it is the main result so far of my 10 years work. .... 1 unknowable territory and 2 maps being variously confused with it and consciousness thrown in to mess it all up even further, and the one thing that sorts it all out experimentally is a scientific account of the scientific observer ... which explains consciousness. If those interested in continuing this discourse want to actually make a contribution to science why don't you try breaking out of your own bubble (thereby stop explaining things in your own native language, which is actually creating/continuing the failure) by learning how to speak to the rest of science instead of each other .... and see what is going on here for what it *really is*. You are at the juncture of (ground-zero), and potentially the trigger of, a structural change in science itself. This is a massive important thing that you have failed to recognise you are key a part of. Unless you do this you will still be here in 10 years saying the same old same old self-feeding jargon-ridden impenetrable blather. Time for you to leave, Grasshopper. :-) Leave. Colin -- 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.
