View Single Post
Old 05-23-2019, 01:13 PM
begbert2 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,261
Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit View Post
And yet, it's literally what happens, as I showed by example! Of course, that example appears to be, unfortunately, invisible to you, or else I can't really explain your stubborn refusal to just go look at it.
If you're talking about your examples in posts 18 and 93, then you literally don't know what you're talking about. Your back-assward argument is that given a closed calculation machine, a given input, and the output from it, you won't be able to unambiguously infer the internal process of the machine. This much is true. From that you make the wild leap to the claim that there isn't an unambiguous process inside the machine. This is stupid. How can I put this more clearly? Oh yeah. That's incredibly stupid.

If you have a closed calculation machine, a so-called "black box", the black box has internal workings that in fact have an unambiguous process they follow and an unambiguous internal state, whether or not you know what it is. We know this to be the case because that's how things in the real world work. And your knowledge of the internal processes is irrelevant to their existence. Or put another incredibly obvious way, brains worked long before you thought to wonder how they did.

So. Now. Consider this unambiguous process and unambiguous internal state. Because these things actually exist, once you have a black box process in a specific state, it will proceed to its conclusion in a specific way, based on the deterministic processes inside advancing it from one ambiguous internal state to the next. The dominos will fall in a specific order, each caused by the previous domino hitting them. And if you rewound time and ran it again, or made an exact copy and ran it simultaneously from the same starting state, it will proceed in exactly the same way following the same steps to the same result.

(Unless the system is designed to introduce randomity into the result, that is, but that's a distracting side case that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The process is still the same unambiguous process even if randomity perturbs it in a different direction with a different result. And I'm quite certain based on observation that randomity has a negligible effect on cognition anyway.)

So. While you think that your example includes a heisenberg uncertainty machine that has schroedinger's internals which simultaneously implement f and f' and thus hold varying internal states at the same time, in actual, non-delusional fact if you have a specific deterministic machine that has a specific internal state that means that it *must* be in the middle of implementing either f or f', and not both. This remains true regardless of the fact that you can't tell which it's doing from eyeballing the output. Obviously.

Your argument is entirely reliant on the counterfactual and extremely silly idea that things can't exist without you knowing about them. Sorry, no. The black box is entirely capable of having a specified internal process (be it f, f', or something else) without consulting you for your approval.

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit View Post
Again, none of this has any relation to my argument.
Your argument is that the "interpretation" of an outside observer has some kind of magical impact on the function of a calculative process, despite there being no possible way that the interpreter's observation of the outside of the black box can impact what's going on inside it.

Or at least that's what you've been repeatedly saying your argument is. I can only work with what you give me.

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit View Post
Well, it at least demonstrates admirable confidence that you think you understand IIT better than its founders, with nothing but a cursory glance!

Regardless, this is not my interpretation of IIT, but one of its core points. Take it from Christoph Koch:
I note that while he baldly asserts that simulations can't be conscious, the only reason he gives for this is that physical matter is magic. He even admits that if you built an emulation of the conscious thing it would behave in exactly the same way, with the same internal causal processes (the same f, in other words), and despite functioning and behaving exactly the same as the original it would still be a philosophical zombie because reasons.

He then goes on to insist that he's not saying that consciousness is a magic soul, before clarifying that he's saying that physical matter has a magic soul that's called 'consciousness'.

I'm sure he's a very smart fellow, but loads and loads of smart fellows believe in magic and souls and gods. Smart doesn't mean you can't have ideological beliefs that color and distort your thinking.

So yeah. To the degree that IIT claims that physical matter has magical soul-inducing magic when arranged in the correct pattern to invoke the incantation, I understand it better than it does, because I recognize silliness when I see it. You think I'm misstating his position? First you have to "build the computer in the appropriate way, like a neuromorphic computer"... and then consciousness is magically summoned from within the physical matter as a result! But if you build the neuromorphic computer inside a simulation "it will be black inside", specifically because it doesn't have physical matter causing the magic.

So take heart! You're not the only person making stupid nonsensical arguments. You're not alone in this world!