X-Message-Number: 11877 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 00:53:47 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: :Consciousness issues, publish your book. Henceforth, until further change of policy, I will use a colon (:) prefix in the subject header of "philosophical" postings that some others may want to skip. Brook Norton, #11870 writes (to me): >Regarding your discussions with Ettinger... I think what hasn't gotten >across is that the Turing tomb not only simulates the being in question, >but also its surroundings, either sufficiently distant surroundings or the >entire universe as required. This includes the beings with which it is to >interact. So when another being talks to the Tomb, the Tomb is expecting >this and replies appropriately, giving a perfect display of interactivity. I think you mean "Turing tome" (an interesting slip, but let's not let it distract us). The Book could simulate many conscious beings who may be interacting, but does that allow *you* to interact? If not, then it's a kind of super-movie (movies too have interacting characters). In my posting, however, I raised the possibility that, if you try hard enough, you might even, in cookbook fashion, create a system that has consciousness in it, even though it does *not* interact with an outside world. It depends on what goes on in the system. (Yes it could be an entire simulated/emulated universe.) On the other hand, if the Book *does* allow *you* to interact, and the interactions are convincing, it's easily seen to be more than just a "Book." Bob Ettinger's posting, #11871: The Quest for the Holy Quale, is interesting and provocative as usual, and brings out some differences with my own outlook. One is that I think processes at a deep level, suitable to define consciousness, are discrete and involve sudden jumps of state rather than a continuous transformation as Bob seems to imply. Based on this, consciousness is indeed an emergent property, "resident" in the whole but not, in any deep sense, in the small components of a supporting process. Another is that I give more weight to isomorphism than he does. Isomorphic processes, within broad but not arbitrary limits, define equivalent states of consciousness and conscious experience, as I see it. I think too that there is more to say on the "static record" (nothing in our reality is truly static); my argument against its being conscious has some holes I can see. I think the idea of "relative consciousness" may have more relevance than I thought--more about this only if anyone is interested. Some of our differences in views may not be of much practical significance, inasmuch as a very large number of state transitions is involved for even the most minor processing at the quantum level. On the other hand, though, computers could soon be much better imitators of conscious humans than they have been up to now, so who knows? On another subject: I recently learned, many thanks to, again, Bob Ettinger, of the AOL Writers Club, which can inexpensively publish your book (under $500). They set it up on their presses from your electronic copy. With a few notorious exceptions they will accept any book you care to publish, as long as you pay the fee. They also distribute through both Barnes & Noble and Amazon, in addition to in-house. Press run and shipments (generally) are according to orders received, you set the retail price. Finally, they are non-exclusive; find another publisher later and it's okay with them. I think there may be other services like this on the web too; I'm not just trying to endorse this one, but there they are. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11877