I really like the idea of openscad, or this, or the many alternatives. But when I say a shape with these and these dimensions, the next shape should attach to it somewhere. And then I want to say: chamfer all outside edges. But in all these programs, it's me redoing the math in my code, computing where the shape goes. As for chamfers, I just give up ...
I think a discussion on induction is best done by splitting the resulting models in two: models based on statistics, and models based on (abstract/iconic) simulation. (Eg all swans are white vs all swans lay eggs.)
Since our reality is "atoms and void", and since the sun and earth are huge configurations of atoms locked together in a stable pattern, the sun coming up tomorrow has nothing to do with statistics. And bayesian reasoning plays no role in our predictions or certainty. At least not directly. It does indirectly, by asking what perturbation, what intervention, can stop this from happening? And how likely are such events?
What we know by experience, by abstraction, or empirically, are three distinct modes of knowing. Experiences are directly known and always true. (Experiences might reference other potentially false things, and might be false indirectly.)
That resolves the whole Mary knowledge problem. Books cannot inject that kind of direct knowledge. Thus the claim "mary knows everything" is either false, or only true for a smaller domain.
One can think of analogies, like tamper resistant logs, or unique CPU states while doing static analysis vs running a program.
All in all, the non-physicalist conclusions are widely overdrawn. More over, for what it is worth, Jackson himself no longer thinks this argument is a good one.
It is a virtual time machine. You can run time forwards, explore various possible futures, then pick the future aligned most with your preferences, capabilities, and taste for risk.
> But in this world, consciousness is, at root, a physical phenomenon, not a purely computational phenomenon.
That is entirely unknown. If it were a purely computational phenomenon, it would explain a lot, and nothing in this article argues against it. Except, perhaps, the iron bar mapping. But it seems to miss that a computer program basically defines a causal network. And recognizing and comparing causal networks is much more objective then the thought experiment acknowledges.
This might be a good thing. There are a few responses possible:
1. Do nothing, public gets angry.
2. Make bitcoin, or its mining, illegal. However, what is the criteria? All blockchains? Should google be illegal too? Both are just a digital product that the public wants.
3. Tax CO2 production by data centers, that might have a chance it can be coordinated broadly between nations, there is enough money there to tax, and bitcoin adds some urgency.
While doubtful CO2 can be taxed globally, without coordination, big companies play governments against each other.
Bending your spacetime frame of reference costs energy because you have to leverage something and change its frame. And you can use your bend spacetime frame to extract energy by bringing it in contact with another frame. But the bending itself, or maintaining it, or changing it, doesn't cost or yield energy.
A cell is a regulator, something that selectively responds to internal and external signals. It doesn't require new math, it requires modeling the signals and responses accurately. But it is a huge, parallel, continuous "state machine".
The problem with an empirical approach is that, when in one state it might respond to an intervention differently than when in another state. Especially if the interventions are at the same level as the signals it normally responds to. (Eg not drowning it in a chemical that inhibits a certain reaction, that will likely always yield the same outcome. But a regulatory hormone might not always yield the same outcome.)
My musings on consciousness, materialism, information, knowledge, life, the universe. Might not all be correct ;) But I think must will find it quite different from the "normal" views.
On the other hand, once a certain layer of functionality exists, and starts being used to build on top of, that layer will resist change, because any variation will throw off so many higher level processes it's unlikely to be viable.