View Single Post
#200
05-23-2019, 05:36 PM
 Guest Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Idaho Posts: 12,869
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit No. Not even close. I haven't said anything about internal processes at all, they've got no bearing or relevance on my argument. The argument turns on the fact that you can interpret the inputs (switches) and outputs (lights) as referring to logical states ('1' or '0') in different ways. Thus, the system realizes different functions from binary numbers to binary numbers. I made this very explicit, and frankly, I can't see how you can honestly misconstrue it as being about 'internal processes', 'black boxes' and the like.
Your "thus" is flat wrong and stupid. When the box in your original argument transformed its input into its output it used a specific approach to do so. It didn't use all theoretically possible approaches to do so; it used one approach to do so. It doesn't use "different functions" to map the inputs to the result, it uses only one function to do so. Which function? Whichever one it used. You can't tell which from the outside, but frankly reality doesn't give crap what you know.

You made it very explicit that your argument depends on a blatantly false assumption, and it's not misconstruing things to point out that the realities of the function of black boxes and internal processes are what show that your assumption is blatantly false.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit OK. So, the switches are set to (down, up, up, down), and the lights are, consequently, (off, on, on). What has been computed? f(1, 2) ( = 1 + 2) = 3, or f'(2, 1) = 6? You claim this is obvious. Which one is right?
I claim it's obvious that only one approach was used. Your interpretation of the result is completely irrelevant, particularly to what was going on inside the box. The inside of the box does whatever the inside of the box does, and your observation of the output and your interpretation of those observations have no effect on the box.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit The internal wiring is wholly inconsequential; all it needs to fulfill is to make the right lights light up if the switches are flipped. There are various ways to do so, if you feel it's important, just choose any one of them.
The internal wiring of the box is entirely, controllingly important to determining how that box functions. And more importantly to destroying your argument, it's important in that the fact that the internal wiring must exist and must implement a specific function completely destroys that assumption you're relying on.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit Because what goes on inside has no bearing on the way the system is interpreted. You can think of it in the same way as reading a text: how it was written, by ink on paper, by pixels on a screen, by chalk on a board, has no bearing on whether you can read it, and what message gets transported once you do. Your language competence, however, does: where you read the word 'gift', and might expect some nice surprise, I read it as promising death and suffering, because it means 'poison' in German. In the same way---exactly the same way---one can read 'switch up' to mean '0' or '1'. And that's all there's to it.
So what? How you interpret the box's output has no bearing on the box's functionality.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit Evidently not, to both our detriment.
I will readily concede that I don't see why you think interpretation is even slightly relevant to anything. The box itself isn't effected, and you can't prove that calculation is internally inconsistent just by eyeballing some output. (Especially not with the massive false assumption your argument seems to hinge on.)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit I'm not going to defend IIT here, but it's a very concrete proposal (much more concrete than anything offered in this thread so far) that's squarely rooted in the physical.
Yuh-huh.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit Well, at least now I know it's not just my fault that my arguments seem so apparently opaque to you.
Wrongness can indeed be copied from elsewhere.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit Premise P2 is self-evidently wrong: if an emulation could exactly duplicate every property of a system, then it wouldn't be an emulation, but merely a copy, as there would be no distinction between it and what it 'emulates'. But of course, no simulation ever has all the properties of the thing it simulates---after all, that's why we do it: we typically have more control over the simulation. For instance, black holes are, even if we could get to them, quite difficult to handle, but simulations are perfectly tame---because a simulated black hole doesn't have the mass of a real one. I can simulate black holes all the live long day without my desk ever collapsing into the event horizon. You'll probably want to argue that 'inside the simulation', objects are attracted by the black hole, thus, it has mass. For one, that's a quite strange thing to believe: it would entail that you could create some sort of pocket-dimension, with its own physics removed from ours, merely by virtue of shuffling around a few voltages; that it would be the case, even though the black hole's mass has no effects in our dimension, there suddenly now exists a separate realm where mass exists that has no connection to ours save for your computer screen. In any other situation, you'd call that 'magic'. Holding that the black hole in the simulation has mass is exactly the same thing as holding that the black hole I'm writing about has mass. The claim that computation creates consciousness is the claim that, whenever I'm writing 'john felt a pain in his hip', there is actually a felt pain somewhere, merely by virtue of me describing it. Because that's what a simulation is: an automated description. A computation is a chain of logical steps, equivalent to an argument, performed mechanically; there's no difference to writing down the same argument in text. The next step in the computation follows from the previous one in just the same way as the next line in an argument follows from the prior one.
You're really, really coming off a somebody who doesn't understand simulations, here. I'm not really sure how to explain simulations in brief, so I'll just say "I accept that you think you've refuted P2, but you really, really haven't." Suffice to say that writing "john felt a pain in his hip" is not a particularly detailed and complete emulation.