From: ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of (A) Life
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:19:34 GMT


I'll be damned, there IS somebody out there.

In article <4u3PVB1w165w@stycx.hacktic.nl> Peter <peter@stycx.hacktic.nl
(Author)> has taken my story (scenario, paradigm) of Harry (article
<Bz45L7.JI3@iat.holonet.net>) and expanded it to the story of Harry and
friends in the light bulb.

I'll make some comments on Peter's paradigm in a bit, but first I would
like to offer my view of this story/scenario/paradigm creation process and
how it fits into the big picture.

For me the goal in this process is the emulation of human consciousness on
a computer.  "Goal" here is not an end point beyond which there is nothing,
merely a resting spot for regrouping and planning the next move.

I believe to do this emulation, we'll need to become skillful at making
observations of the mind from the inside (subjective) and then using the
data gathered from these observations to build and program our computer
from the outside (objective).

Eventually we should be able to build androids that actually operate in the
"real" world, in whose brains are emulations of human consciousness.   Long
before that happens, we'll need to be able to run our emulation on a big
old bulky computer.  To provide the consciousness emulation with a sense of
being in a world, we'll need to simulate an environment with which the
emulation can interact.

And finally, in order to assure ourselves that the mind emulation and the
environmental simulation are producing something that is indeed like the
human mind in the "real" world, we will need to look at our own subjective
situation and imagine that our mind is being emulated on a computer, and
our own world is being simulated on a computer.

The task before us, as I see it, is to develop our ability to view life as
an emulation/simulation, and to do that we need to imagine a series of
plausible story/scenario/paradigms which will lead us to a workable-
functional paradigm. 

This workable-functional paradigm will be one that allows us to easily take
a subjective observation and translate the results of that observation into
a piece of computer code which we can view objectively, and program into
our computer, and test.

Whew!

This is my goal, which shapes some of the parameters of the story-scenario-
paradigms which I'm coming up with.  You might have a different goal.  
Perhaps you don't give a fig for the idea of mankind building conscious
computers, what you're after here is TRUTH, something you can use in your
everyday life.  That's fine too, I don't claim to have total mastery over
my life, and could probably use a little more practical insight, myself.  

However, in the process of gaining this insight, I'm setting my sights on
consciousness emulation, and it is from this perspective that I will be
evaluating my own scenarios, and yours.

Now to Peter's paradigm, Harry and friends in the light bulb.

>1) The simulation allows for n-participants who are introduced to the 
>   simulation, without any memory of their previous existance, by means 
>   of sudden appearance (in the perspective of those already 
>   participating) and withdrawn from by sudden disintegration.
>
>2) The world itself consists of the inner surface of a ball with in the
>   center of the inner space a light bulb which turns itself on and off 
>   in a regular fashion allowing for the notion of day and night cycles. 
>   Gravity applies to the total inner surface.

It's unclear to me if the world shell is part of the simulation, or a real
(as seen from the researcher's point of view) shell with reverse gravity.

Also, Harry's friends, the other participants in the simulation.  I gather
that these are real humans (again, as viewed from the researcher's
perspective), but could they not just as well be simulations (from the
researcher's perspective) and merely appear real to Harry.

And last, I'm not sure of the purpose of the paradigm itself.  Is Peter
providing us with a conceptual bridge, from which he can make his next
point, or is the paradigm merely an exercise in imagination designed to
free us from the spell of mundane reality?

I'm looking forward to continuing this conversation, with Peter or anyone
else who cares to jump in.

--
Ken Easlon
ken@holonet.net