Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Self consistent rules doesn’t imply communication.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Said another way, if you have a dictionary translating, it doesn’t mean the definition is equivalent. In fact, most definitions aren’t, as each one has its nuance. If following a dictionary to arrive at a result after some steps, it doesn’t imply anything other than a set of rules being followed to arrive at an arbitrary value.

Also interesting is the perspective of mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain

Universe as one mind depending on zoomed out vs zoomed in.

However this attribution of mind is simply anything that follows rules. So it’s better to call it “logics” and humans have a property of “bio-logic” abilities. But then what exists outside of logic that allows arbitrary definition of things to represent said logic? The programmer, the consciousness. In general I feel mind exists outside of logic but that’s perhaps a matter of perspective and definition. It gets hard to know where one has defined a conceptual space between continuum and borders and assigning it a range of values.



I don't think communication has anything to do with it. The rules are what they are. Whether I am able to understand them is not really relevant.


Rules don't exist without consciousness assigning a value. Which is to say that consciousness arbitrarily defines truth from nothing.

Rules are not what they are because a rule doesn't have any intrinsic property outside of imagination. It's dependent entirely on consensus and memory.

Without communication, consciousness wouldn't be able to distribute rules. It'd be limited to one mind per set of rules. Communication allows imaginary network effects. Distributed protocol message passing, yay!


The universe doesn’t exist when you die?


The universe may or may not exist when one dies.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: