From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jun 21 2002 - 22:04:38 MDT
Mike writes
> You still don't get it. A things status as 'contrived' is entirely
> subjective to the universe of the thing compared to the universe of the
> observer. To an observer of our universe simulation, we are merely
> contrivances and not 'real', so far as they are concerned.
This has to be completely wrong. It is *objective* whether certain
data is processed or not. Either the calculations that comprise
me, "Lee Corbin calculations" take place, or they do not, one or
the other. If they do, then I am being emulated, and it doesn't
matter when or where. If they are not, then at best I am being
portrayed.
Now an "observer", as you write, of our simulation (if that's in
fact what is going on) either is vastly more intelligent than we
are or he is not. If he is, then he may look down upon the events
in our brains (or simulated brains) as being sub-whatever-he-is,
and may rightly prove that by his standards we are not conscious,
feeling, etc. But if he is anywhere near our level, then he *MUST*
admit that I'm conscious.
(Of course, *you* must substitute yourself in that last sentence,
because *I* could be merely a portrayal insofar as you are concerned.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:57 MST