[mensetmanusman]

Who is reading the Apple?

[simonh]

I'm not sure what you mean by reading.

We say that we can experience thinking about an Apple, or imagining an Apple. I see no reason why a computer, or other physically implemented AGI system, could not do that. I suspect the act of imagination is just generating, processing and transforming a computational model abstracting the thing being imagined.

I believe brains are physical objects, so therefore physical objects can imagine Apples.

[mensetmanusman]

The plane of imagination isn’t physical, else you could touch it.

[simonh]

I don't know what a plane is in this context.

You can't touch fourier transforms either, but a human brain or a microchip can compute them.

[gaganyaan]

Sure you can, its done currently for Deep Brain Stimulation. What you're proposing is "The plane of Quake isn't physical", which is nonsense.

I can make the computer imagine Quake for me, then fiddle with its plane of imagination for some sweet wallhacks.

[mensetmanusman]

If you create a device that can insert objects into the plane of someone’s imagination, that would be awesome :)

[gaganyaan]

That's a side effect of DBI today. It's a random and crude method today, but arguing that we we'll hit some ineffable wall that will prevent more fine-grained control is.. well let's just say that the gaps for gods grow ever smaller.

[gaganyaan]

Who is it that fetched this comment from the internet for you?

Using vaguely-defined words to support a deist position is a time-honored tradition, but isn't particularly interesting or convincing.