From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 14:37:38 MST
As some of my short remarks in another thread may cause
confusion, in addition to creating a lot of unnecessary
doubt, allow me to discourse on conscious integers.
First, if one has not already done so, studying Chapter 6
of Hofstadter's GEB: The Location of Meaning. One concludes
that there are two kinds of meaning, isomorphic and
conventional. The five letters "z e b r a" are of the
latter kind, whereas a road map is of the former kind.
An integer that is isomorphic to one's DNA, say, carries
indisputable meaning. The signature of this truth is that
any even mildly intelligent machinery will detect the
correspondence between the internal structure of this
integer and the DNA. There is no dependence on convention
whatsoever, although I have known a number of people to
take their time conceding this.
Clearly, meaning, in order to be completely stand-alone
and objective, must be isomorphic. An integer of the kind
I mentioned in the other thread depends, however, upon the
English language and its associated meanings, and so does
not entirely stand on its own; it necessarily refers to
a large body of extant written materials and cultures on
Earth. But by suitably enlarging the integer, the meaning
can be made isomorphic, and thereby unmistakable and
unambiguous.
This notion is extended to conscious integers. A conscious
integer base 10, which can have fewer than a googolplex
digits, contains long portions that establish its isomorphic
meaning. This is analogous to the picture on the space
vehicle that Sagen et. al. drew. It encodes up enough
isomorphic meaning to be decipherable by intelligence
elsewhere in the universe.
The conscious integer also has enormous portions devoted
to Q and A. If you have not done so, read "A discussion
with Einstein's Brain" in MetaMagical Themas also by
Douglas Hofstadter, in which a Chinese-type library
(Searle's idea) is made to emulate Einstein.
Now the most difficult point to keep in mind here is that
Einstein's brain is being *emulated* by, say, a large
auditorium wherein sit the particles of Einstein's brain
each on it's little podium, and the clerk runs around to
each moving it from here to there in emulation of how
Albert's brain really would have worked. (The clerk
knows what to do based upon the contents of some fixed,
large book.)
It is entirely different with a conscious integer. The
conscious integer, despite perhaps its own denials, is
getting no run time.
(This remark must be qualified as follows. If one were
to discover this integer, or portions of it, and begin
a dialog, then parts of itself become instantiated in
your own brain, or in the writing materials or computers
that you utilize.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST