X-Message-Number: 21656 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:25:01 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Isomorphisms and Unverifiability Robert Ettinger, #21636, writes: >The isomorphism question is whether a set of symbols can be "the same" as a >physical system, or one physical system the "same" as another. Mike thinks >yes, each in its own "frame of reference." The problem with Mike's view, it >seems to me, is that it leaves no room for verification. It is just a >postulate, or a definition, and basically useless. There are two points I will make in reply. First, while two isomorphic systems could have different and incompatible frames of reference (a set of symbols versus a physical, time-evolving system, for instance) the frames of reference could also be compatible and essentially the same. If I can interact appropriately with a device or system, then its frame of reference, in effect, is the same as mine. So it would be conscious in my world, provided it can be considered isomorphic to another system that I would consider conscious. A working, artificial brain with artificial neurons might furnish an example. The second point is that, true, there is no means of verification of such a claim as this, that a certain artificial construct becomes conscious just because it simulates another system that is conscious. But I think (in appropriate circumstances) there would be no means of refutation either. And there are important examples of unverifiable-but-unrefutable hypotheses that we make judgments one way or the other about today. One example is the hypothesis that loss of consciousness is fatal; the person who wakes up is not the same as the one who fell asleep, but is only similar. This is not something I take seriously or lose sleep over (!)--that is to say, I assume that I survive sleep and it seems to work out. So this is an unverifiable hypothesis that nevertheless can be counted useful. In the future we could be confronted with more such examples, with more controversy over which is the right choice. Suppose, for instance, that an artificial replacement of your gray matter would offer certain advantages such as greater durability and non-susceptibility to disease. Do you get the replacement or turn it down for fear it would no longer be you? Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21656