On 26/06/07, Russell Standish <lists.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
RS: There is, in a sense, a certain arbitrariness in where one draws the
boundaries. But I strongly support the notion that there can be no
consciousness without an environment (aka appearance of a physical world to
the conscious entity). Only if that environment was shared
with our own physical world do we have a possibility of communication. We
would have to acknowledge the same self-other boundary as the other
conscious process.
DN: Yes, and AFAICS this mutual self-other boundary would emerge as an
aspect of the 'selection' of the (putatively) conscious functional
interpretation that is consistent with our interactions with the physical
instantiation. This would presumably remove or reduce any arbitrariness.
RS: Furthermore, I would make the stronger claim that self-other boundary
must be such that neither the self nor the environment can be
computable, even if together they are. We've had this discussion
before on this list.
DN: I'll try to find it - any idea where?
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 01:36:56PM +0100, David Nyman wrote:
> >
> > DN: Now this seems to me crucial. When you say that self-awareness
> emerges
> > from the physics, ISTM that this is what I was getting at in the bit you
> > didn't comment on directly:
> >
> > "My claim is....that if (machines) are (conscious), it couldn't be
> solely in
> > virtue of any 'imaginary computational worlds' imputed to them, but
> rather
> > because they support some unique, distinguished process of *physical*
> > emergence that also corresponds to a unique observer-world."
>
> There is, in a sense, a certain arbitrariness in where one draws the
> boundaries. But I strongly support the notion that there can be no
> consciousness without an environment (aka appearance of a physical
> world to the conscious entity). Only if that environment was shared
> with our own physical world do we have a possibility of
> communication. We would have to acknowledge the same self-other
> boundary as the other conscious process.
>
> Furthermore, I would make the stronger claim that self-other boundary
> must be such that neither the self nor the environment can be
> computable, even if together they are. We've had this discussion
> before on this list.
>
> Gotta run now - my train's pulling in.
> --
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Jun 26 2007 - 22:03:58 PDT