= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlephNeil comments on MWI, copies and probability - 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 (127)
Having read Dennett, I reach the conclusion that the third horn of the 'anthropic trilemma' is obviously the correct one. There is no such thing as a thread of subjective experience. There is no 'fact of the matter' as to whether 'you' will die in a teleporter or 'find yourself' at your destination.
After the grenade explodes with probability 1/2, we can say that with probability 1/2 there is a dead Sly and with probability 1/2 there is a relieved Sly whose immediate memories consist of discussing the 'deal' with Roko, agreeing to go ahead with it, then waiting anxiously. There is no reason whatsoever to believe in a further, epiphenomenal fact about what happened to Sly's subjective experience.
That there 'seems' to be a thread of subjective experience shouldn't give us any more pause than the fact that the Earth 'seems' to be motionless - in both cases we can explain why it must seem that way without assuming it to be true.
Oh! And why do you care about grenades then?
To loosely paraphrase Charles Babbage: 'I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an argument.' I don't believe Eliezer was thinking very clearly when he wrote that post.
I agree. That is the one post of Eliezer's that I can think of that seems to be just confused (when he probably didn't need to be).
Can you share your way of "disconfusion"?
I've made a copy of myself. After that I will find myself either as an original, or as a copy, but both these subjective states will correspond to one physical state. It seems there is something beyond physical state.
I have an idea I've already partially described in other posts, that allows me to remain reductionist. But I wonder how others deal with that.
Edit: Physical state refers to physical state of world, not to the physical state of particular copy.
Er, aren't those the same subjective state as well?
Original-I will see that I still stand/lie on scanner end of copying apparatus. Copy-I will see that I "teleported" to construction chamber of copying apparatus. One's current experiences is a part of subjective state, isn't it?
If scanner and construction chambers are identical, then my subjective state "splits" when Original-I and Copy-I leave chamber (note that "in-chamber" states are one subjective state).
Edit: I've added minor clarification.
These different subjective states correspond to different physical states: different patterns of photons impinge on your retinas, causing different neural activity in your visual cortex, and so forth.
I've left space for misinterpretation in my root post. I meant world physical state, not a state of particular copy. World state: original-body exists and copy-body exists. Subjective state: either I am original, or I am copy.
As far as I can see both those subjective states exist simultaneously, it's not an "either or".
You-before-copying wakes up as both original-you and copy-you after the copying. From there the subjective states diverge. Analogously, in the grenade example before-grenade you continues as both dead-you* and you-with-$100**
*(who doesn't experience anything, unless there's an afterlife)
**(as well as all other possible quantum-yous. But that's another issue entirely)
I suspect I'm rather missing the point. What point are you in fact trying to make if I may ask?
This has nothing to do with 'splitting' per se. If your point was valid then you could make it equally well by saying:
A and B are different people in the same universe. World state: "A exists and B exists". Subjective state: "Either A is thinking or B is thinking." Same physical state, different subjective states. Therefore, "it seems there is something beyond the physical state".
But this 'either or' business is nonsense. A and B are both thinking. You and copy are both thinking. What's the big deal?
(Apparently, you think the universe is something like in the film Aliens where in addition to whatever's actually happening, there is a "bank of screens" somewhere showing everyone's points of view. And then after you split, "your screen" must either show the original's point of view or else it must show the copy's.)
Right now, definitely not. That would involve re-immersing myself in the issue, reviewing several post threads of comments and recreating all those thoughts that my brain oh so thoughtfully chose to not maintain in memory in the absence of sufficient repitition. If I had made my post back then, taken the extra steps of putting words to an explanation that would be comprehensible to others, then I would most likely not have lost those thoughts. (Note to self....)
Sorry? Does it mean that we can assign probabilities to future experiences? Or does it mean that we can't do it, but nevertheless we shouldn't expect being Boltzmann brain in 5 seconds?
Blank map doesn't imply blank territory. Did you read what I write on this? There is consistent (as far as I can see) way to deal with subjective experiences.
Objections:
Isn't it possible (at least non-contradictory) that there could be a universe whose minimum description length is infinite? And even a brain within that universe with infinite minimum description length? If this universe contains intelligent beings having witty conversations and doing science and stuff, do we really want to just flat out deny that these beings are conscious (and/or deny that such a universe is metaphysically possible.)
There isn't always a fact of the matter as to whether a being is conscious and if so, what it's conscious of. For the former, note that the question of when a foetus starts to have experiences is obviously indeterminate. For the latter, consider Dennett's distinction between 'Orwellian' and 'Stalinesque' revisions. Neither is there always a fact of the matter as to how many minds are present (consider a split brain patient). Don't these considerations undermine the idea of using the Solomonoff prior? (If we don't know (a) whether there are experiences here at all, (b) what experiences there are or even (c) whether this smaller object or this larger object counts as a 'single mind' then how on earth can we talk meaningfully about how the 'thread' of subjectivity is likely to continue?)
Well, they will need infinite processing power to effectively use their brains content. And infinite processing power is very strange thing. This situation lies outside of applicability area of my proposal.
My proposal nor discusses, nor uses emergence/existence of subjective experience. If something has subjective experiences and it has experience of having subjective experience, then this something can use Solomonoff prior to infer anticipations of future experiences.