Interesting point. Observations are certainly effects, but you’re right, not all effects are observations. Of course, the example wouldn’t be hurt by my specifying that they only bother faking effects that will lead to observations ;)
the example wouldn’t be hurt by my specifying that they only bother faking effects that will lead to observations ;)
I think it would. I think it’s not the same example at all anymore.
Something that reproduces all effects of cats is effectively producing all the molecular interactions and neurons and flesh and blood and fur that we think are what produces our observations of cats.
On the other hand, something that only reproduces the effects that lead directly to observations is, in its simplest form, something that analyzes minds and finds out where to inject data into them to make these minds have the experiences of the presence of cats, and analyzes what other things in the world a would-be-cat would change, and just change those directly (i.e. if a cat would’ve drank milk and produced feline excrement, then milk disappears and feline excrement appears, and a human’s brain is modified such that the experience of seeing a cat drink milk and make poo is simulated).
Something that reproduces all effects of cats is effectively producing all the molecular interactions and neurons and flesh and blood and fur
Not unless something is somehow interacting with their neurons, which I stated isn’t happening for simplicity, and most of the time not for the blood or flesh.
On the other hand, something that only reproduces the effects that lead directly to observations is, in its simplest form, something that analyzes minds and finds out where to inject data into them to make these minds have the experiences of the presence of cats, and analyzes what other things in the world a would-be-cat would change, and just change those directly (i.e. if a cat would’ve drank milk and produced feline excrement, then milk disappears and feline excrement appears, and a human’s brain is modified such that the experience of seeing a cat drink milk and make poo is simulated).
Oh, I meant the interactions occur where they would if the cat was real, but these increasingly-godlike fairies are lazy and don’t bother producing them if their magic tells them it wouldn’t lead to an observation.
My (admittedly lacking) understanding of Information Theory precludes any possibility of perfectly reproducing all effects of the presence of cats throughout the universe (or multiverse or whatever) without having in some form or another a perfect model or simulation of all the individual interactions of the base elements which cats are made of. This would, as it contains the same patterns within the model which when made of “physical matter” produce cats, essentially still produce cats.
So if there’s a mechanism somewhere making sure that the reproduction is perfect, it’s almost certainly (to my knowledge) “simulating” the cats in some manner, in which case the cats are in that simulation and perceive the same experiences they would if they were “really” there in atoms instead of being in the simulation.
If you posit some kind of ontologically basic entity that somehow magically makes a universal consistency check for the exact worldstates that could plausibly be computed if the cat were present, without actually simulating any cat, then sure… but I think that’s also not the same problem anymore. And it requires accepting a magical premise.
Oh, right. Yup, anything simulating you that perfectly is gonna be conscious—but it might be using magic. For example, perhaps they pull their data out of parallel universe where you ARE real. Or maybe they use some black-swan technique you can’t even imagine. They’re fairies, for godssake. And you’re an invisible cat. Don’t fight the counterfactual.
Haha, that one made me laugh. Yes, it’s fighting the counterfactual a bit, but I think that this is one of the reasons why there was a chasm of misunderstandings in this and other sub-threads.
Anyway, I don’t see any tangible things left to discuss here.
Careful, effects are not the same things as observations.
Interesting point. Observations are certainly effects, but you’re right, not all effects are observations. Of course, the example wouldn’t be hurt by my specifying that they only bother faking effects that will lead to observations ;)
I think it would. I think it’s not the same example at all anymore.
Something that reproduces all effects of cats is effectively producing all the molecular interactions and neurons and flesh and blood and fur that we think are what produces our observations of cats.
On the other hand, something that only reproduces the effects that lead directly to observations is, in its simplest form, something that analyzes minds and finds out where to inject data into them to make these minds have the experiences of the presence of cats, and analyzes what other things in the world a would-be-cat would change, and just change those directly (i.e. if a cat would’ve drank milk and produced feline excrement, then milk disappears and feline excrement appears, and a human’s brain is modified such that the experience of seeing a cat drink milk and make poo is simulated).
Not unless something is somehow interacting with their neurons, which I stated isn’t happening for simplicity, and most of the time not for the blood or flesh.
Oh, I meant the interactions occur where they would if the cat was real, but these increasingly-godlike fairies are lazy and don’t bother producing them if their magic tells them it wouldn’t lead to an observation.
My (admittedly lacking) understanding of Information Theory precludes any possibility of perfectly reproducing all effects of the presence of cats throughout the universe (or multiverse or whatever) without having in some form or another a perfect model or simulation of all the individual interactions of the base elements which cats are made of. This would, as it contains the same patterns within the model which when made of “physical matter” produce cats, essentially still produce cats.
So if there’s a mechanism somewhere making sure that the reproduction is perfect, it’s almost certainly (to my knowledge) “simulating” the cats in some manner, in which case the cats are in that simulation and perceive the same experiences they would if they were “really” there in atoms instead of being in the simulation.
If you posit some kind of ontologically basic entity that somehow magically makes a universal consistency check for the exact worldstates that could plausibly be computed if the cat were present, without actually simulating any cat, then sure… but I think that’s also not the same problem anymore. And it requires accepting a magical premise.
Oh, right. Yup, anything simulating you that perfectly is gonna be conscious—but it might be using magic. For example, perhaps they pull their data out of parallel universe where you ARE real. Or maybe they use some black-swan technique you can’t even imagine. They’re fairies, for godssake. And you’re an invisible cat. Don’t fight the counterfactual.
Haha, that one made me laugh. Yes, it’s fighting the counterfactual a bit, but I think that this is one of the reasons why there was a chasm of misunderstandings in this and other sub-threads.
Anyway, I don’t see any tangible things left to discuss here.
Victory! Possibly for both sides, that could well be what’s causing the chasm.