quwgri
12
16
quwgri has not written any posts yet.
There is one problem with this. It is not entirely clear whether an ordinary living person will talk about consciousness if he is brought up accordingly his whole life (not given any literature that mentions consciousness, never talking to him about qualia, et cetera...).
Causal interactions? The answer is rather trivial. In order for the separate meaningless Planck moments of the brain's existence to be able to combine into "granules of qualia" that have integrity in time, they must be connected by something. It is usually assumed that there are causal relationships behind this, which can be likened to computational processes.
But many transhumanists, it seems to me, show some duality of thinking here. They agree that two adjacent computational cycles of the brain's work can be combined into one sensation. But they refuse to assume the existence of more extended configurations of this kind.
Why? Well, there may be two motives here: correct and not quite correct.
On... (read more)
I don't quite understand how actual infinity differs from potential infinity in this context. Time in ToR is considered one of the dimensions of space. How can space be considered "potential infinity"? It subjectively looks like that to a forward-traveling observer. But usually we use the paradigm of objective reality, where everything is assumed to exist equally. Together with the past and the future, if we recall ToR again. Are we supposed to have a special case here, where we need to switch to the paradigm of subjective reality?
I am familiar with the idea that "the information that enables us to act best is true", but it seems to me to be... (read more)
We can leave theology. It is not so important. I am more concerned with the questions of finitism and infinitism in relation to paradox of sets.
Finitism is logically consistent. However, it seems to me that it suffers from the same problem as the ontological proof of the existence of God. It is an attempt to make a global prediction about the nature of the Universe based on a small thought experiment. Predictions like "Time cannot be infinite", "Space cannot be infinite" follow directly from finitism. It turns out that we make these predictions based on our mathematical problems with the paradox of sets. At the same time, the paradox of sets itself... (read more)
"An infinite universe can exist."
"A greatest infinity cannot exist."
I think there is some kind of logical contradiction here. If the Universe exists and if it is infinite, then it must correspond to the concept of "the greatest infinity." True, Bertrand Russell once expressed doubt that one can correctly reason about the "Universe as a whole." I don't know. It seems strange to me. As if we recognize the existence of individual things, but not of all things as a whole. It seems like some kind of arbitrary crutch, a private "ad hoc" solution, conditioned by the weakness of our brain.
As for God or Gods, then, hypothetically, in the case of the coincidence of their value systems and the mental interaction between them according to a common agreed protocol, these problems should not be very important.
It seems to me that this is an attempt to sit on two chairs at once.
On the one hand, you assume that there are some discrete moments of our experience. But what could such a moment be equal to? It is unlikely to be equal to Planck's time. This means that you assume that different chronoquanta of the brain's existence are connected into one "moment of experience". You postulate the existence of "granules of qualia" that have internal integrity and temporal extension.
On the other hand, you assume that these "granules of qualia" are separated from each other and are not connected into a single whole.
Why?
The first and second are weakly connected to... (read more)
There are several different aspects to this that I have different attitudes towards.
The multi-agent theory of consciousness is plausible. In fact, it is almost tautological. Any complex object can be considered "multi-agent". "Agent" is not necessarily identical to "consciousness". Otherwise, you know, you get homunculus recursion.
But there is another side to the issue.
The idea "You should force your brain to create new characters. You should mentally talk to these new characters. This will help you solve your psychological problems."
There are not really many logical connections between the first and second.
People do often feel better doing this. But people also feel good when they read sci-fi and fantasy. People also feel good when... (read more)
Good evening. Sorry to bring up this old thread. Your discussion was very interesting. Specifically regarding this comment, one thing confuses me. Isn't "the memory of an omniscient God" in this thought experiment the same as "the set of all existing objects in all existing worlds"? If your reasoning about the set paradox proves that "the memory of an omniscient God" cannot exist, doesn't that prove that "an infinite universe" cannot exist either? Or is there a difference between the two? (Incidentally, I would like to point out that the universe and even the multiverse can be finite. Then an omniscient monotheistic God would not necessarily have infinite complexity. But for some reason many people forget this.)
Pascal's Mugging.
The problem is that the probability "if I don't pay this person five dollars, there will be a zillion sufferings in the world" existed before this person told you about it.
This probability has always existed.
Just as the probability "if I pay this person five dollars, there will be a zillion sufferings in the world" has always existed.
Just as the probability "if I raise my right hand, the universe will disappear" has always existed.
Just as the probability "if I don't raise my right hand, the universe will disappear" has always existed.
You can justify absolutely any action in this way.
This is how obsessive-compulsive disorders work.
What equally strongly supports any strategy actually supports no strategy.
These probabilities cancel each other out. And the fact that we know the possible pragmatic reason for the words of the person who asks us for five dollars makes the probability of his words being true lower than the opposite probability.
If we talk about the quote at the beginning, then its final conclusion seems to me not entirely correct.
What the vast majority of people mean by "emotions" is different from "rational functions of emotions". Yudkowsky in his essay on emotions is playing with words, using terms that are not quite traditional.
Fear is not "I calmly foresee the negative consequences of some actions and therefore I avoid them."
Fear is rather "The thought of the possibility of some negative events makes me tremble, I have useless reflections, I have cognitive distortions that make me unreasonably overestimate (or, conversely, sometimes underestimate) the probability of these negative events, I begin to feel aggression towards sources of... (read more)