Gunther wrote:
"...assuming that _every_ computation is conscious qua computation? "
brings up in my mind: thinking in comp (at least: in numbers) translates
'conscious' into 'computed' ??????
(That would imply an elevation from the binary embryonic contraption as our
"computer" into more sophisticated systems, if I dare say: 'analogue'?)
- - -proposal for vocabulary - - -
John M
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Günther Greindl <guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> > 1-OM, (by step 7, correspond to infinity (aleph_zero) of 3-OMs,
> > themselves embedded in bigger infinities (2^aleph_zero) of
> > computations going trough their corresponding states.
> > Between you-in-the-living room, and you-in-the-kitchen there is
> > already a continuum of stories/computations.
>
> I'm fine up to here.
>
> > The alien should be able to shut down the universal dovetailer. By
>
> No, they need not - see below.
>
> > I think you (momentarily perhaps?) forget the full consequence of the
> > seventh uda step. You, in the next instant, is literally determined by
> > a continuum of computations+oracles executed by the UD. Thanks to
>
> I am aware of Step 7: but I don't agree that all computations need
> correspond to a continuation of an OM.
>
> You agree that some "continuations" can actually be a non-continuation,
> don't you? For instance, in Quantum suicide, there are versions of you
> which die (visibly for other observers) - so there are "continuations"
> of your state which code your termination.
>
> I do not see following from UDA that all computational continuations
> need correspond to OMs. For instance, in step 1 we say "yes doctor", but
> we don't say yes to every doctor, for instance to the one arriving with
> some cogwheels -> "no doctor" ;-)
>
> So, what I am saying is that maybe in some cases (cul de sac) _all_
> (2^aleph_zero) continuations actually code for termination (=the
> teleport fails completely, but annihilation unfortunately succeeds).
>
> How can you exclude that? Are you assuming that _every_ computation is
> conscious qua computation? (then I would agree -> QI; but I don't share
> that assumption, and I don't see it anywhere in UDA)
>
> Best Wishes,
> Günther
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Thu Mar 12 2009 - 16:16:07 PDT