@_100101890 "one mind at a time rule" unfounded - there's nothing that would prevent two minds running simultaneously on the same substrate
Conversation
Replying to
yeah - it's either baseless or virtually trivial, at minimum. W potential timesharing, weak presumption of identity, channel >
1
1
Replying to
> plexing, qcomp...and have we met the biome yet? It's a stretch even to say a totally typical human CNS, as presently known to >
1
2
Replying to
> function, is possessed by only and exactly one 'mind'. The constraint claim isn't even evaluable if you can't count (the) minds
1
3
Replying to
@_100101890 apart from the obvious stuff I'm fond of the idea that there may be a slow mind and a fast mind running entirely independently
2
1
4
Replying to
yes! Speed, freq. are close enough to same thing from infoprocess' POV. Another form of multiplexing, w/ differential allocation?
1
1
Replying to
..hm. where would you see that? An (eg. Amazon) ecosystem? Or metabolism/chemosynthesis-centric information hub like a human GMB?
1
1
Replying to
@_100101890 definitely a(n eco)system, for example those wandering lichens could support a slimemold-like mode and a cellular turing mode
2
2
Replying to
@_100101890 or like in Lady of Mazes, a role playing game with rules so complex that a mind runs on them (w/o participants being aware)
2
1
2
Replying to
that game(stack/( )hole/(-complex) sounds capable of being profoundly dangerous, fantastic even else... definitely must have
2
Replying to
@_100101890 I fear you'll have to buy or pirate it, but the same author wrote Ventus which I also heartily recommend kschroeder.com/my-books/lady-