• Create Account

### #ActualHodgman

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:15 PM

Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort [that consciousness isn't created by the body]

To paraphrase:
mdwh: consciousness arises out of the complexity of a large number of smaller simpler parts.
recompile: that belief lacks grounding. there is no reason to believe that it is the case the consciousness arises from a complex system.
It seems as if you're trying to refute that consciousness doesn't arise from the complex interactions of smaller parts?

If it's not caused by something within the body, then it must be caused by something external to it. (That's too easy.)

And now it seems you're directly refuting that consciousness is created by the body, and maybe it's just magic?

That's not what I said at all. Also, reading the rest of the quote, I looks like you've misunderstood the term 'determinism'.

You said we "cannot simulate the universe on a computer as a computer is a deterministic system and the universe is not". I was clarifying that non-deterministic rule sets can still be simulated on a computer.
I understand determinism and that the universe may be non-deterministic. The thing is that at a high level, the universe does appear deterministic. Given a high level description of an object, it will behave in the same way, mostly. At a lower level, the universe appears probabilistic. You can still simulate such a universe on a deterministic computer, assuming you take all of the possibilities into account. If given a description of an object, there are 10 possible outcomes, then you can branch the state of your simulation and determine what will happen next for each of those outcomes. This will lead to 10 more events, each of which cause 10 more splits, so now you've got 100 copies of your simulation. In reality the number of splits is infinite, not 10, but the same theory applies.
In practice, it is actually possible to take all infinity probabilities into account calculate the n most likely outcomes to get results to what the desired accuracy is. We use these techniques to simulate reality already. So, today, we can simulate an extremely small part of the non-deterministic universe to some degree of error, e.g. telling you what the result will be 99.999% of the time. In theory, with infinite time and memory, you could determine all possible branches, making it possible to express a non-deterministic world by deterministic means.

Take some time with it.

### #3Hodgman

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:13 PM

Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort [that consciousness isn't created by the body]

To paraphrase:
mdwh: consciousness arises out of the complexity of a large number of smaller simpler parts.
recompile: that belief lacks grounding. there is no reason to believe that it is the case the consciousness arises from a complex system.
It seems as if you're trying to refute that consciousness doesn't arise from the complex interactions of smaller parts?

If it's not caused by something within the body, then it must be caused by something external to it. (That's too easy.)

And now it seems you're directly refuting that consciousness is created by the body, and maybe it's just magic?

That's not what I said at all. Also, reading the rest of the quote, I looks like you've misunderstood the term 'determinism'.

You said we "cannot simulate the universe on a computer as a computer is a deterministic system and the universe is not". I was clarifying that non-deterministic rule sets can still be simulated on a computer.
I understand determinism and that the universe may be non-deterministic. The thing is that at a high level, the universe does appear deterministic. Given a high level description of an object, it will behave in the same way, mostly. At a lower level, the universe appears probabilistic. You can still simulate such a universe on a deterministic computer, assuming you take all of the possibilities into account. If given a description of an object, there are 10 possible outcomes, then you can branch the state of your simulation and determine what will happen next for each of those outcomes. This will lead to 10 more events, each of which cause 10 more splits, so now you've got 100 copies of your simulation. In reality the number of splits is infinite, not 10, but the same theory applies.
In practice, it is actually possible to take all infinity probabilities into account calculate the n most likely outcomes to get results to what the desired accuracy is. We use these techniques to simulate reality already. So, today, we can simulate an extremely small part of the non-deterministic universe to some degree of error, e.g. telling you what the result will be 99.999% of the time. In theory, with infinite time and memory, you could determine all possible branches, making it possible to express a non-deterministic world by deterministic means.

### #2Hodgman

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:09 PM

Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort [that consciousness isn't created by the body]

To paraphrase:
mdwh: consciousness arises out of the complexity of a large number of smaller simpler parts.
recompile: that belief lacks grounding. there is no reason to believe that it is the case the consciousness arises from a complex system.
It seems as if you're trying to refute that consciousness doesn't arise from the complex interactions of smaller parts?

If it's not caused by something within the body, then it must be caused by something external to it. (That's too easy.)

And now it seems you're directly refuting that consciousness is created by the body, and maybe it's just magic?

That's not what I said at all. Also, reading the rest of the quote, I looks like you've misunderstood the term 'determinism'.

You said we "cannot simulate the universe on a computer as a computer is a deterministic system and the universe is not". I was clarifying that non-deterministic rule sets can still be simulated on a computer.
I understand determinism and that the universe may be non-deterministic. The thing is that at a high level, the universe does appear deterministic. Given a high level description of an object, it will behave in the same way, mostly. At a lower level, the universe appears probabilistic. You can still simulate such a universe on a deterministic computer, assuming you take all of the possibilities into account. If given a description of an object, there are 10 possible outcomes, then you can branch the state of your simulation and determine what will happen next for each of those outcomes. This will lead to 10 more events, each of which cause 10 more splits, so now you've got 100 copies of your simulation. In reality the number of splits is infinite, not 10, but the same theory applies.
In practice, it is actually possible to take all infinity probabilities into account calculate the n most likely outcomes to get results with what desired accuracy is. We use these techniques to simulate reality already. So, today, we can simulate an extremely small part of the non-deterministic universe to some degree of error, e.g. telling you what the result will be 99.999% of the time. In theory, with infinite time and memory, you could determine all possible branches, making it possible to express a non-deterministic world by deterministic means.

### #1Hodgman

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:07 PM

Again, I'm not saying anything of the sort [tjhat consciousness isn't created by the body]

To paraphrase:
mdwh: consciousness arises out of the complexity of a large number of smaller simpler parts.
recompile: that belief lacks grounding. there is no reason to believe that it is the case the consciousness arises from a complex system.
It seems as if you're trying to refute that consciousness doesn't arise from the complex interactions of smaller parts?

If it's not caused by something within the body, then it must be caused by something external to it. (That's too easy.)

And now it seems you're directly refuting that consciousness is created by the body, and maybe it's just magic?

That's not what I said at all. Also, reading the rest of the quote, I looks like you've misunderstood the term 'determinism'.

You said we "cannot simulate the universe on a computer as a computer is a deterministic system and the universe is not". I was clarifying that no-deterministic rule sets can still be simulated on a computer.
I understand determinism and that the universe may be non-deterministic. The thing is that at a high level, the universe does appear deterministic. Given a high level description of an object, it will behave in the same way, mostly. At a lower level, the universe appears probabilistic. You can still simulate such a universe on a deterministic computer, assuming you take all of the possibilities into account. If given a description of an object, there are 10 possible outcomes, then you can branch the state of your simulation and determine what will happen next for each of those outcomes. This will lead to 10 more events, each of which cause 10 more splits, so now you've got 100 copies of your simulation. In reality the number of splits is infinite, not 10, but the same theory applies.
In practice, it is actually possible to take all infinity probabilities into account calculate the n most likely outcomes to get results with what desired accuracy is. We use these techniques to simulate reality already. So, today, we can simulate an extremely small part of the non-deterministic universe to some degree of error, e.g. telling you what the result will be 99.999% of the time. In theory, with infinite time and memory, you could determine all possible branches, making it possible to express a non-deterministic world by deterministic means.

PARTNERS