Oh, all right. I'm bored and suggestible.
1 - Both potentially meaningful
2 - That's a question about the meanings of words. I don't object to those constraints on the meanings of those words, though I don't feel strongly about them.
3 - If "qualia" is meaningful (see 1), then no.
4 - N/A
5 - Ugh. "Any required degree" is damningly vague. Labeling confidence levels as follows:
...I'd say C1 > C2 > C3 > 99%, though C2 would require also implementing the computer in neurons in a cloned body.
5a - Depends on the required level of accuracy: ~0% for a stone statue, for example. For any of the above examples, I'd expect it to do so as much as the original does.
5b - Not in the sense you mean.
6 - I am not sure that question makes sense. If it does, accurate priors are beyond me. For lack of anything better, I go with a universal prior of 50%.
7 - Mostly that's a question about definitions... if it doesn't explain consciousness, is it really a Theory of Everything? But given what I think you mean by ToE: 99+%.
8 - Question about definitions. I'm willing to constrain my definition of "real" that way, for the sake of discussion.
9 - I have no idea and am not convinced the questions make sense, x4.
10 - x5.
11 - Not entirely, though it is a regular student at a nonsensei-run dojo.
This post is a followup to "We are not living in a simulation" and intended to help me (and you) better understand the claims of those who took a computationalist position in that thread. The questions below are aimed at you if you think the following statement both a) makes sense, and b) is true:
"Consciousness is really just computation"
I've made it no secret that I think this statement is hogwash, but I've done my best to make these questions as non-leading as possible: you should be able to answer them without having to dismantle them first. Of course, I could be wrong, and "the question is confused" is always a valid answer. So is "I don't know".
a) Something that an abstract machine does, as in "No oracle Turing machine can compute a decision to its own halting problem"?
b) Something that a concrete machine does, as in "My calculator computed 2+2"?
c) Or, is this distinction nonsensical or irrelevant?
ETA: By the way, I probably won't engage right away with individual commenters on this thread except to answer requests for clarification. In a few days I'll write another post analyzing the points that are brought up.