<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
Jason Resch said:<br>
<br>
"<font size="+1"><tt>Special relativity implies spacetime, which
means there is no such thing as an objective present point in
time. This implies "block time" the idea that in reality the
universe is a static unchanging 4 dimensional block rather than
a 3d one evolving through time. Thus, all times are equally
real, every thing in every time exists eternally and has always
existed.</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
I think you are over-interpreting the significance of such theories.
And this idea of 'block time' is irrelevant to people's actual
lives, which begin and end. I'm not interested in whether I'm
eternal in some sense because of an interpretation of a theory, I'm
interested in extending my lifespan beyond its natural limit. For
that, things must be done. For your 'immortality', what does anyone
need to do? Nothing. Frank Tipler's Omega Point is just something
that may happen in the far distant future. Without any input from
me, or anyone else. Not interesting or relevant. In fact, it might
as well be a religious concept. This '4-dimensional block time'
doesn't prevent anyone from dying, does it? It doesn't prevent
people from growing old and decrepit. In fact, it doesn't make one
iota of difference to their lives. It applies just as much to Thog
the Caveman, Rameses the second, Mrs Miggins and Napoleon as it does
to me. So where is the progress, the improvement, and the expansion
of human capabilities? There is none. It is simply irrelevant, an
intellectual curiosity of no practical value.<br>
<br>
To paraphrase Woody Allen, I want immortality through not dying, not
through being embedded in 4-dimensional block time.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"<font size="+1"><tt>I defined consciousness as awareness of
information, and said that it can arise in any information
processing system which can enter different states based upon
that information</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
Ah, yes, so you did.<br>
Now I know why I didn't remember it.<br>
<br>
Seeing as nothing can be aware of anything but information, you're
saying "consciousness is awareness". Great. Can you come up with
something a little less trite?<br>
<br>
And can you prove that it can arise in any information processing
system? Well, any system that processes information can be said to
be 'aware' of the information, otherwise it wouldn't be able to
process it. Entering different states is implicit in the word
'processing'. An information processing system that doesn't change
its state in response to incoming information isn't processing the
information.<br>
<br>
It seems we have a problem.<br>
<br>
Perhaps I should modify my question: How do you define
'consciousness' without using circular definitions?<br>
<br>
Yes, sorry, it's a trick question. I don't think it's possible.
'Consciousness' is just one of those wooly words that doesn't really
mean anything definite at all.<br>
<br>
I propose we drop the word altogether, and just talk about
Information Processing instead. This has the advantage of avoiding
any potential supernatural implications or associations. Then we can
get on with more interesting and useful questions, such as what kind
of structure does an information processing system need to have in
order to solve complex problems, model other such systems, model
itself, remember the past, make predictions about the future based
upon information gathered in the past, etc.?<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben Zaiboc</pre>
</body>
</html>