From: Lee Corbin (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2008 - 21:22:01 MDT
> [Stathis writes]
>> Does S(n+1) have to be generated by P from S(n) or is the raw fact
>> that S(n) and S(n+1) simply occur sufficient to generate subjective
>> continuity? Lee would argue that the causal link is important, I would
>> say that the moments of consciousness order themselves due to a rule
>> such as you describe.
> In the model, continuity depends only on the algorithmic similarity of S(n)
> and S(n+1). In practice, this would require some communication between the
> two processes.
>> What if each S has to be implemented on real hardware in a finite
>> single world cosmology? I don't see how you could fit in more states
>> by making the difference between them smaller and smaller, since at
>> some point there will be no subjective difference between one state
>> and the next.
> The model assumes that the set of states is isomorphic to N. Any real
> implementation with finite memory must have finite subjective experience.
It sounds as though you are insisting on a real implementation, that is,
an actual physical process consisting of causally linked states, say
with the causation defined by the Rules of Conway's Life or by
physics, or whatever. I'm not asking you to take sides in my debate
with Stathis, just trying to understand.
That is, if we try to argue that your model is an accurate description.
I also would note that some of the preceding posts in this thread might
be read as saying that a GLUT is conscious. I don't think that one can
be, as I've made clear in another thread, mainly because it easily reduces
(in my opinion) to timeless patterns, e.g., like clouds of dust scattered
over lightyears in space, or patterns that can be discerned in rocks.
> All implementations must have finite memory because the universe has a
> Bekenstein bound of about 10^122 bits.
That would be the *visible* universe, of course. If Tipler is right about
Level One---which I think he is---the actual universe is infinite.
> I realize there is a fundamental conflict because the model says that
> consciousness is immortal but any implementation is mortal.
Well, would you then say that this conflict in your model goes away
if in your *real implementations* you insist on ordinary causality
consisting of orderly information flow between the ordered states
to characterize them, e.g. some systems obeying laws of physics
of some form or another?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT