Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.atheism,sci.cognitive,sci.physics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!decwrl!enews.sgi.com!wdl1!lds081!are107.lds.loral.com!hahn
From: hahn@newshost  (Karl Hahn)
Subject: Re: Physics of Immortality
Message-ID: <950406120022@are107.lds.loral.com>
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Lines: 73        
Sender: news@lds.loral.com
Reply-To: hahn@lds.loral.com
Organization: Loral Data Systems
References: <D5p0tG.Bqt@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <3lhfrg$ce0@expert.cc.purdue.edu> <house.797046597@helios>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 17:00:22 GMT
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:26621 sci.cognitive:7227 sci.physics:116536

In article <house.797046597@helios> house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:

>   brynta@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jerk) writes:
>   
>   >In article <D5p0tG.Bqt@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, Vic Cinc <vicc@ucc.su.oz.au> wrote:
>   >>
>   >>having just read Tiplers "physics of immortality" while I have
>   >>countless reservations about what tipler has to say there is 
>   >>one simple point I will make.
>   > [castrate] 
>   >>the patern is not the thing it is duplicating.
>   > [snip]
>   >       It is true that the simulation is not the object it is 
>   >replicating,  However if there is enough computational power then
>   >It would be possible to replicate an objects behavior- or -assuming
>   >the uncertainty principle possible behaviors of that object can 
>   >be replicated.  If we determine all relevant laws of physics to
>   >concienceness and can accurately map out neural nets in the brain
>   >and have enough computer power a 'Possible' version of the self
>   >could concievably be loaded up and simulated.  This simulated
>   >mind would have ideas and emotions as the original did.  One 
>   
>   Sez you!  :-)
>   
>   Seriously, your conclusion here is not justified by the facts as you
>   state them. Even if we grant everything you say except the last
>   sentence, it does not follow that the simulation will actually
>   experience the feelings and self-awareness that we do. The most
>   you could infer is that it would _act_ as if it were experiencing
>   those feelings etc.

That is also the most I can infer about another human being.  The only
consciousness I can be sure exists is my own.  This is not a new
observation.

>   Now I know that many people claim that seeming
>   to do X is the same as actually doing X, but that in itself is an
>   unsubstantiatable metaphysical proposition - and one that, to many
>   of us, seems palpably false. 

And despite that same "unsubstantiatable metaphysical proposition," I
do allow that other human beings have consciousness and feelings,
much as I do.  Do you?

Considering that entities of extreme complexity (like the human neural
system) behave in complex and unpredictable ways, why is it so difficult
to believe that one of those ways might be the arising of consciousness?
Why must consciousness be some mystical gob of ether?  Perhaps it
is simply a side effect of certain complex Turing machines.  You cannot
prove either way that the subjective experience of consciousness would
or would not accompany such a Turing machine no matter how it was
implemented.

We do know that Turing machines are capable of limitless complexity.
It has also been proven that every neural net has an equivalent
Turing machine and vice versa.  So the fact that we are unable to
simulate consciousness (or the appearance of it) with existing
technology means nothing.  Comparing the complexity of existing
technology to the complexity of any mammalian brain is like comparing
an ice cube to Antarctica.

[deletia]

--
|         (V)              |  "Tiger gotta hunt.  Bird gotta fly.
|   (^    (`>              |   Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.
|  ((\\__/ )               |   Tiger gotta sleep.  Bird gotta land.
|  (\\<   )   der Nethahn  |   Man gotta tell himself he understand."
|    \<  )                 |  
|     ( /                  |                Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|      |                   |  
|      ^           hahn@lds.loral.com          my opinions need not be Loral's


