= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mitchell_Porter comments on Open Thread: February 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (738)
Can you justify that in a noncircular way? What's a mind, and why doesn't a glass have one?
Is someone really obligated to define "mind" just in order to demonstrate that a glass is not in the set of things that has one? I can't define "game" but "the weak nuclear force" is not an example of one.
If I read him correctly, Vladimir is proposing to make time itself a mind-dependent phenomenon. Time happens inside minds but not inside shattering glasses. So he needs to explain the difference.
Time does happen inside shattering glasses, and it's not "mind-dependent". Happy?
But you said:
Time itself is how a certain process feels from the inside. If time is a feeling, it can only happen where there are feelings, so if it happens inside shattering glasses, then they have feelings.
That was a reference to "how an algorithm feels from the inside", with "feels" not intended for literal interpretation.