3 ms·

I would counter that by saying that: 1) this has nothing to do with computation. 2) my subjective experience is objectively there. No one questions what I am

I would counter that by saying that: 1) this has nothing to do with computation. 2) my subjective experience is objectively there. No one questions what I am thinking. (That is, no one else looks inside my brain and claims: This is not what your thinking!) My thoughts might be my own personal view and differ from other people's thoughts but their existence is not up for debate.

db48x 6y ago
This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. In the novel, many people have had their minds uploaded into regular electrical computers as well, though they're generally not able to run in real time. That's not a counter, because it's just what I said. We all have a subjective inner experience. The premise of the novel is that this subjective inner experience is both necessary and sufficient for immortality. The story is an exploration of solipsism, though most of the characters in it choose to take people with them rather than to exist in immortal isolation.
- codethief 6y ago
  No offense, but I obviously haven't read the novel and can't follow at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. And no, what I said is not what you said. Having read the novel, maybe you're interpreting your own words and/or my words in terms of that novel? That is, maybe you're oblivious to how your words/my words get interpreted when you have not read the novel? Back to the original discussion: > This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. This still doesn't explain why computation should be subjective.
  - db48x 6y ago
    Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. We would say that those computations are sapient, or sentient, or self aware, or otherwise describe them as people.
    - codethief 6y ago
      > Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. No, you're interpreting them as such. Computation is objective. The only thing is that obviously your outputs depend on your inputs.
      - db48x 6y ago
        This is a theme which is explored in several different ways in the book. Another commenter has already related the tale of the man who ran an automatic optimizer on a copy of his own program. The optimizer noticed that the copy of the program had no inputs and no outputs, so it optimized it to an empty program. The man was understandably dissatisfied, because the empty program has no subjective experiences, while the man does. You might say that he made the mistake of optimizing a program with no inputs or outputs, but he would say that the designer of the optimizer made the mistake of not considering the subjective experience of the software to be valuable. It's certainly true that you can have a worthwhile life even if you stop talking to other people. At the very least, there have been hermits who have thought that they were having a worthwhile life, and who are we to argue? The author of the brief "explanation" errs, I think, in simply using the phrase "computation is […] subjective". He should have instead said that sapient computations have a subjective experience. But if you don't believe that minds are software running on a funny kind of Turing machine, then even that statement might be nonsense.
a1369209993 6y ago
> my subjective experience is objectively there. Nitpick: you (or anyone else) don't actually have subjective experience; you have objective experience that some people mistakenly call subjective due to the practical difficulty of fully communicating it. Compare, eg someone claiming there is no objective truth about the[0] text of the Illiad on the basis that there are multiple equally valid ways of translating it into English. I don't think that has anything directly to do with the point you were making, though. 0: they neglect to mention: original, Greek
- db48x 6y ago
  Whether one's internal experience is subjective or objective is not really germane to the book. Nobody can reach into another person's mind and grasp the totality of their experience, which makes it effectively subjective even if it is in principle objective. What is relevant is that some minds have internal experiences which are correlated, and that correlation points to an objective reality. If I tell you that the sky is pink, and you look outside and see that it is actually black with white polka-dots, are we in different realities, is one of us a solipsist (meaning that the other doesn't even exist), is one of us insane, or are we just in different time zones? One of these explanations is simplest, of course, but the book is about the others.

db48x 6y ago

This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. In the novel, many people have had their minds uploaded into regular electrical computers as well, though they're generally not able to run in real time. That's not a counter, because it's just what I said. We all have a subjective inner experience. The premise of the novel is that this subjective inner experience is both necessary and sufficient for immortality. The story is an exploration of solipsism, though most of the characters in it choose to take people with them rather than to exist in immortal isolation.

codethief 6y ago
No offense, but I obviously haven't read the novel and can't follow at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. And no, what I said is not what you said. Having read the novel, maybe you're interpreting your own words and/or my words in terms of that novel? That is, maybe you're oblivious to how your words/my words get interpreted when you have not read the novel? Back to the original discussion: > This has everything to do with computation, because the mind is just software running on a funny kind of computer. This still doesn't explain why computation should be subjective.
- db48x 6y ago
  Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. We would say that those computations are sapient, or sentient, or self aware, or otherwise describe them as people.
  - codethief 6y ago
    > Not all computation is subjective, but some computations have a subjective viewpoint. No, you're interpreting them as such. Computation is objective. The only thing is that obviously your outputs depend on your inputs.
    - db48x 6y ago
      This is a theme which is explored in several different ways in the book. Another commenter has already related the tale of the man who ran an automatic optimizer on a copy of his own program. The optimizer noticed that the copy of the program had no inputs and no outputs, so it optimized it to an empty program. The man was understandably dissatisfied, because the empty program has no subjective experiences, while the man does. You might say that he made the mistake of optimizing a program with no inputs or outputs, but he would say that the designer of the optimizer made the mistake of not considering the subjective experience of the software to be valuable. It's certainly true that you can have a worthwhile life even if you stop talking to other people. At the very least, there have been hermits who have thought that they were having a worthwhile life, and who are we to argue? The author of the brief "explanation" errs, I think, in simply using the phrase "computation is […] subjective". He should have instead said that sapient computations have a subjective experience. But if you don't believe that minds are software running on a funny kind of Turing machine, then even that statement might be nonsense.

a1369209993 6y ago

> my subjective experience is objectively there. Nitpick: you (or anyone else) don't actually have subjective experience; you have objective experience that some people mistakenly call subjective due to the practical difficulty of fully communicating it. Compare, eg someone claiming there is no objective truth about the[0] text of the Illiad on the basis that there are multiple equally valid ways of translating it into English. I don't think that has anything directly to do with the point you were making, though. 0: they neglect to mention: original, Greek

db48x 6y ago
Whether one's internal experience is subjective or objective is not really germane to the book. Nobody can reach into another person's mind and grasp the totality of their experience, which makes it effectively subjective even if it is in principle objective. What is relevant is that some minds have internal experiences which are correlated, and that correlation points to an objective reality. If I tell you that the sky is pink, and you look outside and see that it is actually black with white polka-dots, are we in different realities, is one of us a solipsist (meaning that the other doesn't even exist), is one of us insane, or are we just in different time zones? One of these explanations is simplest, of course, but the book is about the others.