Re: [singularity] Uploaded p-zombies

2007-09-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 10/09/07, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a final paradoxical example, if implementation Z is nothing, that > is it comprises no matter and information ar all, there still is a > correspondence function F(Z)=S which supposedly asserts that Z is X's > upload. There can even be a f

Re: [singularity] Uploaded p-zombies

2007-09-10 Thread Vladimir Nesov
Monday, September 10, 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote: MM> --- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intentionally don't want to exactly define what S is as it describes >> vaguely-defined 'subjective experience generator'. I instead leave it >> at description level. MM> If you can't define wh

Re: [singularity] Uploaded p-zombies

2007-09-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 10/09/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I intentionally don't want to exactly define what S is as it describes > > vaguely-defined 'subjective experience generator'. I instead leave it > > at description level. > > If you can't defi

Re: [singularity] Uploaded p-zombies

2007-09-09 Thread Matt Mahoney
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intentionally don't want to exactly define what S is as it describes > vaguely-defined 'subjective experience generator'. I instead leave it > at description level. If you can't define what subjective experience is, then how do you know it exists?

Re: [singularity] Uploaded p-zombies

2007-09-09 Thread Vladimir Nesov
Monday, September 10, 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote: MM> Perhaps I misunderstand, but to make your argument more precise: MM> X is an implementation of a mind, a Turing machine. No. The whole argument is about why turing machine-like implementation of uploaded brain doesn't seem to do the trick. X is

Re: [singularity] Uploaded p-zombies

2007-09-09 Thread Matt Mahoney
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sunday, September 9, 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote: > > MM> Also, Chalmers argues that a machine copy of your brain must be > conscious. > MM> But he has the same instinct to believe in consciousness as everyone > else. My > MM> claim is broader: that

Re: [singularity] Uploaded p-zombies

2007-09-09 Thread Vladimir Nesov
Sunday, September 9, 2007, Matt Mahoney wrote: MM> Also, Chalmers argues that a machine copy of your brain must be conscious. MM> But he has the same instinct to believe in consciousness as everyone else. My MM> claim is broader: that either a machine can be conscious or that consciousness MM>