I'm not sure if that is what @Hutcheson means by 'simulation', I think he's suggesting something else?
-
-
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @SimsYStuart and
But the Simulation Hypothesis 1st assumes that 'I am a Turing Machine' is viable. If we locate consciousness in the Turing Machine per se, then we must say that a stack of printouts on a very long shelf is conscious, if it contains the full description of a TM and its history
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @SimsYStuart and
I'd rather say we should notice that a TM, like any other mechanical device, doesn't experience things. It just does things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @SimsYStuart and
I think that is correct. A physical thing cannot experience anything. Only a simulation can. Physical things can implement simulations, however.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
So you’re conceptualizing conscious as a holographic simulation created by the physical brain? That’s interesting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @chrisfcarroll and
I don't know if it is best characterized as holographic, or how you define holographic here. But I think that a conscious observer is self-reporting on a model of its own attention, and the content of that is a specific relationship between observer and observed simulacrum.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
Sounds like a “user interface” for a biological robot, when you put it like that. But the idea is attractive. Have you written a paper along these lines?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @Plinz and
Are you basing this concept on Pribram & Bahm’s model of the holographic brain? That’s the first model which leapt to mind when you described the idea.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @chrisfcarroll and
No, I am unaware of any relation of my thoughts to his, except very indirectly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
Hmm. If we take the holographic principle described by Bohm and think of the brain as a holographic nested hierarchy, a logical conclusion would be a unitary holographic simulation (consciousness) emerging from a trillion individual holographic simulations (neurons).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It seems to me that you are wantonly gluing intuition fragments together. That is fine because you don't try to implement any of that. But I don't think that things that cannot be implemented can be real.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
Exploring flashes of intuition can be helpful. And I doubt I hit the mark on this one, I agree. But you presented me with a fresh idea, which doesn’t happen every day. I’ve not considered this concept of consciousness as a simulation. It’s an exciting idea. Ty
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @chrisfcarroll and
What is your goal? If you want to solve an existential issue, understanding consciousness probably won't help. If you want to solve consciousness, thinking in any other than a rigorous way won't help. Why are you doing this?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 15 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.