4 ms·

> You are confusing two things. I doubt it. The essence of the question is the definition of "you" in your sentences. Who or what is "you"? (In fact that qu

> You are confusing two things. I doubt it. The essence of the question is the definition of "you" in your sentences. Who or what is "you"? (In fact that question is the short wide path to enlightenment, if "you" are into that sort of thing. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-enquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-enquiry It's metaphysical dynamite.) If you don't nail down that fundamental ground (who or what are you?) then there's no point talking about it. What is the "you" that has "a systems perspective"? What is the "you" that is going to live in the imaginary computer universe you are postulating? Because it sounds like you think you are imaginary. > Likewise, you don’t need to know where the CPU is. But it still is in space? It still exists? It's not imaginary? > The game provides an environment that is independent of what kind of computer you are running it on (given enough speed to be indistinguishable). The computer still has to have a monitor? A controller with switches and buttons? > the Internet [is] independent of the exact physical things. No my friend it is exactly those physical things and nothing else. There is no "the Internet" there is only physical things and subjective awareness. As far as we know "subjective awareness" whatever it is only occurs in brains, physical brains. You are saying that "subjective awareness" can exist (whatever "exist" means) without any hardware at all. I don't think you (or anyone else) has any evidence that that's true.

skirmish 2y ago
> No my friend it is exactly those physical things and nothing else. There is no "the Internet" there is only physical things and subjective awareness. So if an AI model is controlling a character that walks around and interacts with human-controlled characters on a Minecraft server, according to you none of those exist, it is all just wires and electric currents? Then by the same logic, "you" also don't exist, it is all just neurons activating and making your muscles move.
- carapace 2y ago
  > it is all just neurons activating and making your muscles move. > ...and subjective awareness.
  - skirmish 2y ago
    The AI also claims subjective awareness when you chat with its avatar in the Minecraft world. Now what?
    - carapace 2y ago
      If I write "I am alive" on a piece of paper does that make it a living being? If I carve Aleph on the brow of the Golum does it become a man? How big does the pile of switches have to be before it changes from "what" to "who"? Look the point I'm making is that before one can speak meaningfully of uploading consciousness into the Internet one has to specify one's metaphysics. I have my own beliefs, and I'd love to yammer on about them if asked (fair warning!) but that's beside the point. Without figuring out what "you" is it's meaningless to talk about "you" living in "the Internet".
      - skirmish 2y ago
        Seems that nobody will ever satisfy your metaphysical expectations. I am content with the old-fashioned Turing test: if my interlocutor can communicate reasonably intelligently, I am happy to treat him/her/it as an intelligent being.
        carapace 2y ago
        > Seems that nobody will ever satisfy your metaphysical expectations. How am I the asshole here? OP was like "I'm going to go live in the Internet" and I'm pointing out that's a fantasy. What's your beef? Are you afraid I'm going to discriminate against toasters? > if my interlocutor can communicate reasonably intelligently, I am happy to treat him/her/it as an intelligent being. Well if you're talking to a machine and treating it like a person you're an idiot in my view, but don't let that bother you, eh?
        skirmish 2y ago
        Wow, it seems I was not able to satisfy your sky high metaphysical expectations either. Swearing does not make you right, good day!
Nevermark 2y ago
> You are saying that "subjective awareness" can exist (whatever "exist" means) without any hardware at all. I don't think you (or anyone else) has any evidence that that's true. A software program running exists. Its rules exist. It requires hardware to run on, but the details of the hardware, beyond accepting the instruction set the software uses, are irrelevant. Checkers is a game with rules that are independent of the materials that make up its playing peices. Minds as systems run, exist, on physical things. But they can be independent of any substrate in that any substrate that implements the rules they need to operate will support a mind. That exists.
- carapace 2y ago
  > A software program running exists. What is "a software program" in your concept? You can't put "a software program" into a wheelbarrow. You can print out code and put that in a wheelbarrow, or write it to a disc or USB key or whatever, and each of those things exist, but they are not the program. Patterns in real things exist. The pattern of the bits is real (even in the brain) but the "a software program" is imaginary: it "exists" only in your mind. Bucky Fuller had a great demo: he would take a length of rope that was made of three smaller lengths of rope spliced together, jute, cotton, and silk. He would tie a loose granny knot in the jute end, hook his finger into the loop, and draw the knot along the length through the jute, into the cotton, then into the silk and then off the end. As with all great demos there is the inner and the outer meaning. The outer meaning should be obvious: self-referential pattern (the knot) has or can have it's own stable existence in a proper medium (the rope). Both exist, the knot and the rope, but in very different ways. Are you familiar with Meta-II? The same software program has been translated to many different languages, each translation exists (can be printed out) but none of them are the Meta-II software program. That is just a concept in a human mind. > the details of the hardware ... are irrelevant. But it still has to exist? The one detail that matters is that the hardware exists. > Checkers is a game with rules that are independent of the materials that make up its playing peices. Checkers doesn't exist. It's just an idea. If all the people who know how to play checkers were to somehow vanish, so would checkers, even if the boards and pieces and rule books remained. (While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that Tuesdays don't exist either. Just as an aside.) > Minds as systems run, exist, on physical things. If those physical things are brains, yes, as far as we know. At least it sure seems that way. > But they can be independent of any substrate in that any substrate that implements the rules they need to operate will support a mind. How do you know? That is an interesting speculation but one that has no evidence to support it. Even if it's so, and we can build machines intricate enough to carry the knot from our meat into silicon, there is no reason to expect that our subjective awareness would go with it. Mind is not self. We can build models of our minds that act like us, just as Babbage had the Silver Lady, an automaton that danced like a ballerina, but they will not be alive anymore than she. To me it sounds like you are saying that you believe that knot is mind and can be drawn into non-biological media, I'm saying that "you" are not mind, so even if this is possible and you can achieve it, you will only have succeeded in making a sculpture of yourself which can have no more life or being than stone.

skirmish 2y ago

> No my friend it is exactly those physical things and nothing else. There is no "the Internet" there is only physical things and subjective awareness. So if an AI model is controlling a character that walks around and interacts with human-controlled characters on a Minecraft server, according to you none of those exist, it is all just wires and electric currents? Then by the same logic, "you" also don't exist, it is all just neurons activating and making your muscles move.

carapace 2y ago
> it is all just neurons activating and making your muscles move. > ...and subjective awareness.
- skirmish 2y ago
  The AI also claims subjective awareness when you chat with its avatar in the Minecraft world. Now what?
  - carapace 2y ago
    If I write "I am alive" on a piece of paper does that make it a living being? If I carve Aleph on the brow of the Golum does it become a man? How big does the pile of switches have to be before it changes from "what" to "who"? Look the point I'm making is that before one can speak meaningfully of uploading consciousness into the Internet one has to specify one's metaphysics. I have my own beliefs, and I'd love to yammer on about them if asked (fair warning!) but that's beside the point. Without figuring out what "you" is it's meaningless to talk about "you" living in "the Internet".
    - skirmish 2y ago
      Seems that nobody will ever satisfy your metaphysical expectations. I am content with the old-fashioned Turing test: if my interlocutor can communicate reasonably intelligently, I am happy to treat him/her/it as an intelligent being.
      - carapace 2y ago
        > Seems that nobody will ever satisfy your metaphysical expectations. How am I the asshole here? OP was like "I'm going to go live in the Internet" and I'm pointing out that's a fantasy. What's your beef? Are you afraid I'm going to discriminate against toasters? > if my interlocutor can communicate reasonably intelligently, I am happy to treat him/her/it as an intelligent being. Well if you're talking to a machine and treating it like a person you're an idiot in my view, but don't let that bother you, eh?
        skirmish 2y ago
        Wow, it seems I was not able to satisfy your sky high metaphysical expectations either. Swearing does not make you right, good day!

Nevermark 2y ago

> You are saying that "subjective awareness" can exist (whatever "exist" means) without any hardware at all. I don't think you (or anyone else) has any evidence that that's true. A software program running exists. Its rules exist. It requires hardware to run on, but the details of the hardware, beyond accepting the instruction set the software uses, are irrelevant. Checkers is a game with rules that are independent of the materials that make up its playing peices. Minds as systems run, exist, on physical things. But they can be independent of any substrate in that any substrate that implements the rules they need to operate will support a mind. That exists.

carapace 2y ago
> A software program running exists. What is "a software program" in your concept? You can't put "a software program" into a wheelbarrow. You can print out code and put that in a wheelbarrow, or write it to a disc or USB key or whatever, and each of those things exist, but they are not the program. Patterns in real things exist. The pattern of the bits is real (even in the brain) but the "a software program" is imaginary: it "exists" only in your mind. Bucky Fuller had a great demo: he would take a length of rope that was made of three smaller lengths of rope spliced together, jute, cotton, and silk. He would tie a loose granny knot in the jute end, hook his finger into the loop, and draw the knot along the length through the jute, into the cotton, then into the silk and then off the end. As with all great demos there is the inner and the outer meaning. The outer meaning should be obvious: self-referential pattern (the knot) has or can have it's own stable existence in a proper medium (the rope). Both exist, the knot and the rope, but in very different ways. Are you familiar with Meta-II? The same software program has been translated to many different languages, each translation exists (can be printed out) but none of them are the Meta-II software program. That is just a concept in a human mind. > the details of the hardware ... are irrelevant. But it still has to exist? The one detail that matters is that the hardware exists. > Checkers is a game with rules that are independent of the materials that make up its playing peices. Checkers doesn't exist. It's just an idea. If all the people who know how to play checkers were to somehow vanish, so would checkers, even if the boards and pieces and rule books remained. (While I'm at it, I'd like to point out that Tuesdays don't exist either. Just as an aside.) > Minds as systems run, exist, on physical things. If those physical things are brains, yes, as far as we know. At least it sure seems that way. > But they can be independent of any substrate in that any substrate that implements the rules they need to operate will support a mind. How do you know? That is an interesting speculation but one that has no evidence to support it. Even if it's so, and we can build machines intricate enough to carry the knot from our meat into silicon, there is no reason to expect that our subjective awareness would go with it. Mind is not self. We can build models of our minds that act like us, just as Babbage had the Silver Lady, an automaton that danced like a ballerina, but they will not be alive anymore than she. To me it sounds like you are saying that you believe that knot is mind and can be drawn into non-biological media, I'm saying that "you" are not mind, so even if this is possible and you can achieve it, you will only have succeeded in making a sculpture of yourself which can have no more life or being than stone.