From: Stuart Armstrong (dragondreaming@googlemail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2008 - 15:34:38 MDT
> > With me so far?
> >
>
> Maybe! What does it look like to you? Is it safe to proceed? :-)
Still some confusions (I see G as a function on S - it takes one state
of the system, and gives you another (subsequent) state, so is a
function)! But the main ideas are there. Let me paraphrase the
argument I've been circling around:
A GLUT may be hash equivalent to consciousness; but it there exists a
set-up that is not too complicated, where the rules of consciousness
are not to complicated (compared with a full GLUT), then we should
take this set up as really "telling us something about consciousness"
rather than the GLUT, which tells us little.
Another mathematical comparison: any statement I make about
polynomially defined objects in Cartesian coordinates, can also be
proved without Cartesian coordinates and using methods known to the
ancient greeks.
However, the greek methods are add hoc rules of thumb requiring
difficult skills and random knowledge to master, while the Cartesian
coordinate/differentiation methods are universal, and beautifully
connected with each other.
In this way, modern methods are telling us more about these objects
than classical methods, just as some compact theory of consciousness
tells us more than a GLUT. This is especially true if you consider
"partial truths": a partial truth on a GLUT is just some sort of
sub-GLUT, a partial truth of a theory of consciousness can be
considerably simpler (even relative to the theory of consciousness).
Do you want me to go over the polynomial example again, dealing with
your comments? I will, if you think that knowing the specifics will be
useful!
All the best,
Stuart
PS: What is this "end of time" you were mentioning? :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT