From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Apr 10 1999 - 13:21:31 MDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience@pobox.com> on Sunday, April 04, 1999
wrote about lots of good thought experiments:
> Has the causal connection been broken or not?
I think some (not all) of your questions can be answered by having
a definition of causality that is consistent with our everyday use of
the term and yet produces few philosophical problems:
If event A causes event B that means two things and two things only:
1) If you find event A you are certain to find event B further along a
sequence of events.
2) If you find event B you may or may not find event A
in the opposite direction.
This asymmetry is useful, humans call one direction along the sequence of events
"The Future" and the other direction "The Past". I don't know why the sequence is
organized the way it is, I don't know why only one sequence seems to be real
and thus only 2 directions exist in time. I'm not even sure it's true
and there are only 2 directions in time.
Sometimes people feel there is a third property causality must have,
namely a story that connects A to B, however as this invariably brings in other
causal connections it obviously has no place in a fundamental definition.
I think most of the Turing machines you mention in your post would be
conscious despite the unconventional way they operate; it's not difficult
to extrapolate some bizarre and perhaps even disturbing conclusions
from there, but so be it. Anyway, that's the way this Turing machine sees it.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBNw+ku9+WG5eri0QzEQJlBwCfXRTlOPjDHLFraXn5lPtUUDRB+WUAoPxz
RancRCggzB5UA0yiJk18UyLn
=wgnn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:31 MST