4 ms·

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 re

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.

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.