Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:13:26 -0400

Dear Stan,

    Could I oppose the idea that consiousness is not Turing Emulable without
being a "biological chauvinist"? ;-)The main problem I have is that these
two assumptions are mutually exclusive!

1) Observer-moments exist: This requires that observer-moments have an
ontological status that does not depend on anything other that they
consistensy; they are elevated by postulation to having the same status as
mathematical tautalogies, like 1 = 1, 1+2 = 3, etc.

2) This mysterious consciousness thing is "Turing emulable": This requires
that for ANY 1st person experience that ANY observer might have that there
exist at least one string of binary numbers that, when encoded on a UTM,
will generate an simulation that if feed into a full sensory Virtual Reality
interface, will be indistinguishable from the 1st person content of the
consiousness.

    Now, you might point out that it is obvious that the binary strings are
members of the mathematical tautologies and thus have a "timeless"
ontological status. I would agree with that completely, but I would point
out that the notion of a UTM or UD does not have the same timeless status
because it requires that there be some kind of physical process and memory
traces/tapes/chicken scratchings/etc.
    Additionally, unless we have some kind of observer, even if it is a UTM
or UD itself, that can be interogated via some kind of physical interface by
some other observer, it is logically impossible to claim that consciousness
exists. Such would be equivalent to wondering whether of not some black box
where capable of emulating a conscious experience without allowing any form
of interface with the black box! The "Yes Doctor" idea requires that the
consciousness that is transfered from a biological brain to silicon be
capable of reporting its 1st person states otherwise our claims are reduced
to mere speculations. For example see the discussion of Zombies.

Kindest regards,

Stephen

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>
To: <brian.scurfield.domain.name.hidden>; <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden.net>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: RE: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness


> This is a wonderfully clear explanation of Bruno's UDA. Perhaps Bruno
> could confirm that it is what he intended.
>
> As for the observer - or more fundamentally, the observer-moment - I think
> you can get away without explicitly defining it. All you need is two
> assumptions:
>
> Firstly, you have to assume that observer-moments exist. I think it is
> pretty clear that this is the case; you know it and I know it. You may not
> know how to explain it, define it, or even describe it, but you definitely
> know that observer-moments exist if you are a conscious being.
>
> Secondly, you have to assume that this mysterious consciousness thing is
> "Turing emulable". It is not nearly as obvious that this second assumption
> is true, and biological chauvinists may continue to deny it no matter what
> progress AI research may make. At some point, as Bruno says, you may have
> to take "comp" on faith; for example, say "yes doctor" to the offer of a
> durable new electronic brain when yours is starting to break down.
>
> It should now be clear that if both of the above assumptions are true,
> then the UD should generate all the observer-moments as per Bruno and
> Brian. The "observer" is then a derivative entity, made up of certain
> subsets of observer-moments. You know what an observer-moment is through
> direct experience, but you have nowhere been forced to explicitly define
> it. If you want to say that consciousness is something utterly mysterious
> forever, you can say this, and the UDA still holds.
>
> --Stathis Papaioannou
Received on Fri May 06 2005 - 16:27:37 PDT