[ExI] The Many Dimensional Sculpture, or dont' bother about runtime
Rafal Smigrodzki
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 04:22:03 UTC 2008
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it? I'll have to investigate this term, 'modal realism'. Is this the
> same as monads?
### Nnno, I think it's something different. I never read any Leibniz, so
couldn't tell with certainty.
--------------------------------
> > Some small structures within events reflect, or correlate with, their
> > surroundings.This special form of reflection or map of surroundings,
> > is probably a necessary feature of awareness. In addition to
>
> I do not see this as necessary for the ideas that you go on to discuss.
> How can you have a map of your surroundings? The map is not the
> territory.
### A map is something that allows prediction about the territory. It may be
a bunch of neurons in your parietal cortex. The omniscient observer could
guess the shape of the room you are in by examining them. They correlate
with the room, so they are a map. The best map is of course the territory
itself. I mention this to better describe my idea of self, where
consciousness and awareness are important.
----------------------------------------------
Is consciousness necessarily so fundamental? In answer to my own
> question, I suppose it would have to be, otherwise you are not really
> philosophizing, are you?
### Well, yes, consciousness is very important for the properties of
observable worlds, as per the anthropic principle. Only some worlds have the
properties that allow consciousness to exist in them, so even if other
worlds are real, we won't see them.
-------------------------------------------------
> Historical context is unchangeable, yes, but perhaps we can cut
> ourselves loose from our histories and become something ... other?
### But if its Other, it's not You! :)
If we are mathematical structures, then our own definitions constrain us. As
you wrote above ""your effort to
remain what you are is what limits you.", and I agree with it. But of
course, if your definition of yourself is quite liberal, then by that
definition your tree of life may be huge, limited only by your own
imagination.
------------------------------------------
>
> What? A million brains doing the same thing is really the same thing? I
> do not see how that is true. Suppose we in fact tried that, and we had
> a million brains that were in fact quantumly similiar in most of the
> aspects that matter. Would not their relations and contexts be
> different, wouldn't we have a floating brain field consuming tons of
> resources and so on?
### Lee gave the explanation so I won't repeat it here, since I agree with
him.
-------------------------------------
>
> > same macroscopic-level thoughts, words and actions but differing at
> > the quantum scale may represent true copies but personally I don't
> > care about them - they do not differ in the higher-order correlations
> > I mentioned above as necessary for consciousness. Why bother running
> > them if they don't materially change the shape of all my thoughts? I
> > might object to such copies being tortured, since they would increase
> > the measure of pain in the me-tree. Timelessly said, the preference
>
> Are you sure you would object? What is this obsession with "me"ism?
### I have a very strong aversion to suffering, so I really don't want
billions of beings very similar to me kept on tenterhooks. But I don't have
a strong proclivity to just being there, and I wouldn't spend any money on
making billions of copies running the same thoughts, even orgasmically
pleasant ones. This is an asymmetry of desires - strong aversion to
suffering, a much weaker pull to pleasure.
Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080312/afc7132c/attachment.html>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list