Search

Ideas that are…

Search Ideas


49 ideas match your query.:

By the Church-Turing Thesis, all computation can be specified/programmed. So the evolutionary aspect of a person can be specified/programmed, if it is computational.

#4789​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

The system may not have perfect knowledge of all programs present in it. The repeated independent emergence of winged flight in the biosphere comes to mind.

#4788​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

Because programs present in the system at one time could be no longer present at another time. Previously well-adapted programs could have decayed, been destroyed or consumed. So the same evolutionary path (approximately or not) could be travelled again, in principle.

#4787​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

But why would the system ever re-evolve to the satisfaction of a niche already satisfied previously? If the programs evolved by the evolutionary aspect of the person already exist, there is no more need for evolution of them.

#4786​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​CriticismCriticized2

Actually this is not implied. One experience and an identical later one could be caused by the same program(s) being run again at a later time; if the program which is identical to the given experience is part of an "evolutionary personhood program", that still qualifies: If the second experience is identical, under the above solution that just means that the exact same evolutionary steps are taken in the second case. Maybe this would virtually never happen, but poses no problem of principle.

#4785​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

SOLUTION: The apple programs give rise to consciousness only in a given context. Only when run a certain way (by a person).

#4779​·​Tyler MillsOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #4749​·​Criticized1

Is all conscious experience not the running of programs, but computation that is realizing the evolution of programs? Computation which cannot be abstracted to any program, then? So in what sense can a person "be programmed"? Is personhood computational, but "non-programmatic"?

#4757​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1

This implies that no two instances of experience, even if seemingly identical, are caused by the same programs.

#4756​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1

SOLUTION: The apple programs give rise to consciousness only in a given context. Only when run a certain why, by a person.

#4754​·​Tyler MillsOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #4749​·​Criticized2

PROBLEM: Why are we conscious of the apple rendering? Given (6), why is there an experience of it, if the programs comprising it are looping, and so are therefore predefined?

#4752​·​Tyler MillsOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #4748

SOLUTION: The apple programs are not the same programs one execution to the next. They are being re-evolved every time they are run. This evolution is what the person is doing, and so must be what gives rise to the experience consisting of the apple rendering.

#4751​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago

This suggests that programs can be “run differently” to result in a different computation. This is false because it violates Substrate Independence: the instantiation of a program is unaffected by its physical implementation. If a “context” changes what the program is computing, then that’s a different program. Suggesting that a person running the apple programs “makes them” conscious therefore is not sound. The programs are either conscious or not. If they were, by (A1), they would be people.

#4750​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticism

SOLUTION: The apple programs give rise to consciousness only in a given context. Only when run a certain why, by a person.

#4749​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized2

PROBLEM: Why are we conscious of the apple rendering? Given (6), why is there an experience of it, if the programs comprising it are looping, and so are therefore predefined?

#4748​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1

(7) We can be conscious of the apple imagery for the entire 5 seconds.

#4747​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago

(6) Repeated running of the same fixed program is automatic, requires no creativity, and cannot constitute experience.

#4746​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago

(5) Repeated running of the same fixed program, not being a person, does not make it a person.

#4745​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago

(4) The programs rendering the apple are not people, so cannot themselves constitute experience.

#4743​·​Tyler MillsOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #4739

(4) By A1, the programs rendering the apple are not people, so cannot themselves constitute experience.

#4741​·​Tyler MillsOP revised about 1 month ago​·​Original #4739​·​Criticized1

Assumption A1: Only programs that are people while running constitute qualia/experience/subjectivity/consciousness.

#4740​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1

(4) The programs rendering the apple are not people, so cannot themselves constitute experience.

#4739​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago​·​Criticized1

(3) The programs rendering the apple imagery must be looping until stopped, since they could not have advance knowledge of when the stimulus stops.

#4738​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago

(2) The rendering is caused by the running of some number of programs.

#4737​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago

(1) During the entire 5 seconds, your mind renders the image of the apple.

#4736​·​Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month ago