Activity feed

I think you run into circular dependence if you exhaustively try to account for brain function by information processing. Even Claud Shannon’s definition of information is dependent upon a «mind/perspective» defining a range of possible states. The world devoid of any perspective would have infinite states and systems depending on how you «view the world». An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) Three body problem. This computation is dependent on a mind defining states and logical relations.

If we use Claud Shannon’s framework of understanding information as reducing uncertainty, a light switch doesn’t contain information. But the problem with all kinds of information is that it is dependent on how you subjectively define states and uncertainty. Information is always relative to a certain «perspective».

If we define a computer as anything that processes information, the brain is at least partly a computer, since it also processes information. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a brain is only a computer. Information processing can be done without subjective experience or qualia.

A brain's properties therefore transcend information processing. It is completely conceivable that you can construct a physical brain with identical information processing without accompanying experience (zoombie argument), unless you wan't to say that this instance of information process is dependent on also having the experience.

I disagree that the universe would remain an object if we remove all objects, because an object must have properties. If we define “the universe” as the totality of all objects, then removing them leaves only a word with no metaphysical referent, and therefore can’t be thought of as “existing”. So I agree that it doesn’t work when applied to “all of existence”. This is why I think your point about the excluded middle makes nothingness impossible. But generally speaking, “nothingness” as a quantifier typically involves no logical contradictions.

I know.

I’m not quite sure, but it sounds like you are reverting your stance on having misread #696. Does that mean #1192 should be marked as a criticism after all?

But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation […]

We do know that. From the laws of physics. From BoI ch. 6:

[E]xpecting a computer to be able to do whatever neurons can is not a metaphor: it is a known and proven property of the laws of physics as best we know them.

I know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!

@knut-sondre-saebo, you write in the explanation for this revision:

I think the the law of excluded middle is more a property or constraint of existence, rather than a cause. Since we can treat universe as being something as a given, the reason it can't be something else is because the law of excluded middle constrains it to be what it is.

Revision explanations are meant to be short, eg ‘Fixed typo’ or ‘Clarified x’. Since the quote above contradicts #521, it might be worth submitting it as a criticism of #521, or as a separate idea. It doesn’t really work as a revision because revisions are for incremental changes, not for introducing contradictions.

💯

I do think the whole mind is a program (or programs).

When you make a revision to address a criticism, be sure to uncheck the corresponding criticism in the revision form, section “Do the comments still apply?”. That way, #1134 won’t show up anymore.

In #1189, yes, but then you reverted it in #1192.

I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.

Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.

Or am I missing something?

[…] it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist.

That isn’t a sentence.

Knut has fixed the typo. @knut-sondre-saebo, be sure to check off addressed criticisms when you revise an idea. Underneath the revision form, there’s a list of criticisms that you can check and uncheck.

The quote is now outdated.