# Permutation City **The Pattern of Self-Recognition**: The speaker is suggesting that what we consider “self” or “consciousness” is essentially a pattern that organizes itself out of a chaotic set of potential states. This is akin to how, in the book, Paul’s identity can arise from isolated snapshots of brain states, even if they’re out of sequence. The line implies that if the brain can construct a coherent sense of “I” by recognizing certain patterns, then consciousness could be less about the physical structure and more about the ability to recognize a coherent “self” in whatever pattern exists. * On [Solipsism](Solipsism.md), pattern of self recognition * [ChatGPT](https://chatgpt.com/share/e/671d0ae6-7a7c-8006-bd08-470e6340e735) [Dust Theory](Dust%20Theory.md) [Cellular Automaton](Cellular%20Automaton.md) [Autoverse](Autoverse.md) ### Real consciousness Deutsch response to permutation city page 48 - ask notebook lm. Page 50, how would deutsch respond to this given his ideas on virtual reality? > Supporters of the Strong AI Hypothesis insisted that consciousness was a property of certain algorithms -- a result of information being processed in certain ways, regardless of what machine, or organ, was used to perform the task. A computer model which manipulated data about itself and its "surroundings" in essentially the same way as an organic brain would have to possess essentially the same mental states. "Simulated consciousness" was as oxymoronic as "simulated addition." > > Opponents replied that when you modeled a hurricane, nobody got wet. When you modeled a fusion power plant, no energy was produced. When you modeled digestion and metabolism, no nutrients were consumed -- no real digestion took place. So, when you modeled the human brain, why should you expect real thought to occur? A computer running a Copy might be able to generate plausible descriptions of human behavior in hypothetical scenarios -- and even appear to carry on a conversation, by correctly predicting what a human would have done in the same situation -- but that hardly made the machine itself conscious. This seems related to Searls chinese room argument The flaw with the counter argument here is that * The use of the word "real" is quite vague. * It is also mixing up intrinsic and extrinsic boundaries. For example, consider the [Flight Simulator](Flight%20Simulator.md). Is any real flight occurring? Well, viewed externally you may say no. But from the internal pov it may be indistinguishable from the real thing. * Something is real if it kicks back, following [Dr Johnsons Criteria](Dr%20Johnsons%20Criteria.md) * So, both the physical process of simulating digestion is real, as is the interpretation of digestion occurring * TODO: Also read this: [ChatGPT](https://chatgpt.com/share/e/672a2feb-52e4-8006-8703-2bc2e5cab258) If we think about a Copy of ourselves being stored on trillions of AWS mini servers, two potential flaws arise: 1. If each server stores a bit, they still need to follow some update rule. This means that different bits (think cellular automaton) need to be able to talk to one another (the update rule requires them communicating). Bits still need to be represented *physically*. Information is an abstract concept that still requires a *physical instantiation*. 2. "Who" is the "interpreter"? Single bits on their own can't be conscious, but even trillions, without some communication between them or interpretation can't be conscious either 1. A biological brain and a computer brain can *do the interpreting* (of which one thing they can do is *interpret* a "dust brain"). But it is not at all clear how a dust brain could do any interpreting of its own. 3. The argument that "other versions surely exist, but we're unable to notice them..." borders on [Solipsism](Solipsism.md) 4. Degradation of dust representation over time due to noise, entropy, etc. Constantly requires *reinterpretation*. 5. "So, why aren’t cells conscious? Presumably, because we simply aren’t _interpreting_ them in a way that reveals them to be conscious." 1. This is definitely [Solipsism](Solipsism.md) in disguise. ### Lambertian's Method of Communication See note in NotebookLM The idea that the Lambertians' dances could express the kind of self-similarity David Deutsch discusses in _The Fabric of Reality_ is intriguing. Deutsch argues that **the universe's structure allows one physical phenomenon to represent another to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.** [1] He emphasizes how an astrophysicist's brain can contain an accurate model of a distant astrophysical jet, highlighting the deep interconnectedness and representational capacity within the physical world. [1] Applying this to the Lambertians, we can explore whether their dances can be considered a form of simulation or representation of physical processes. Here's a breakdown of the argument: - **Lambertian Dances as Embodied Computation:** The sources describe how the Lambertians "actively demonstrate the underlying mathematics" of a theory through their dances. [2] The specific movements, formations, and rhythms embody mathematical concepts and relationships, making the dance itself a form of computation. [2, 3] This aligns with Deutsch's argument that the physical world can be understood as performing computations. [4, 5] - **Representation of Physical Processes:** Just as humans use mathematical symbols, language, and computer models to represent reality, the Lambertians use dance as their primary medium of representation. [2, 6] If their dances can embody mathematical concepts and relationships, it's plausible that they could also represent other physical processes and theories. [2, 6, 7] - **Arbitrary Complexity:** Deutsch emphasizes the ability of physical systems to represent others with arbitrary accuracy. [1] The sources suggest that Lambertian dances can also hold information to arbitrary degrees of complexity. [2, 6] For example, they can dance complex cosmological models, including a heliocentric model of their solar system. [8, 9] This suggests their dance language has the potential to represent highly complex phenomena. **However, there are some key points to consider:** - **Direct Embodiment vs. Symbolic Representation:** Lambertian dances are directly embodied representations, where the physical movements themselves carry meaning. [2, 10] Human representations are often more symbolic, using abstract systems like language and mathematics. [6] This difference may limit the kinds of phenomena Lambertians can easily represent, particularly abstract concepts. - **Focus on Observable Phenomena:** The Lambertians' dances seem primarily concerned with representing observable phenomena in their environment. [8, 11, 12] Deutsch's concept of self-similarity encompasses a broader range of phenomena, including those beyond immediate perception. [1, 13, 14] - **Lack of Individual Conceptualization:** The Lambertians cannot conceptualize or communicate complex models individually. [10] This raises questions about their ability to understand and represent phenomena beyond the scope of their collective dances. Could they, for instance, grasp the concept of parallel universes as described by Deutsch? **Therefore, while the Lambertians' dances exhibit a form of self-similarity in their ability to represent physical processes, there are limitations and differences compared to the broader scope of self-similarity Deutsch describes.** Further exploration could consider: - **The Role of Neural Resonance:** The sources emphasize that a dance's "validity" is judged by its aesthetic and neurological "resonance" within the Lambertian group. [2] How does this process of neural validation shape their ability to accurately represent physical reality? - **Potential for Abstraction:** Could the Lambertians develop more abstract forms of representation within their dance language? Could they move beyond representing directly observable phenomena to encompass more abstract concepts? - **Implications of Their Artificial Origins:** The Lambertians exist within a simulated environment, unaware of their true nature. [7, 15] How might this affect their capacity to fully grasp the underlying self-similarity of the universe, especially given their limitations in abstract thought? The Lambertians offer a fascinating case study in exploring the boundaries of self-similarity and the diverse ways in which intelligent beings can represent and understand the physical world. ### Think through * [Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain) * TODO: Go through 10 favorite creative examples, attempt to write them yourself, then compare to Egan's approach. --- Date: 20241025 Links to: [Dust Theory](Dust%20Theory.md) Tags: References: * [Way More Things Are Conscious Than We Realize. Here’s Why. | by Jeremie Harris | The Startup | Medium](https://medium.com/swlh/way-more-things-are-conscious-than-we-realize-heres-why-4d5c879cadec)