From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Jun 22 2002 - 19:42:32 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> 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.
Whether a sentient being is objectively equal to another no matter what
simulation or level one resides in is a different question entirely, but
certainly one I intend to get to once we iron out whether we are as
'real' as a being in any other simulation, sentient or otherwise.
>
> 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.
S/He/IT might admit you are an AI in this simulation, but is under no
compunction to admit anything more, no matter what the comparative
intelligence of you and it. It may recognise coding for self awareness
if it is that capable, but doesn't necessarily equate self awareness
within this simulacra with self awareness within their own. Nor,
apparently, have they empowered you, or I, to operate avatars within
their own environment, or to even have confirmed evidence of its
existence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:58 MST