Um, I know three lawyers off the top of my head: one charges $250/hour in Denver, another $130/hour near Denver, the other $400/hour in Houston.
When you have a job where the work is sporadic but you make a lot *per hour*, it's just the nature of the beast that you're supposed to be fucking *saving* for the predictable dry spells.
Another example of this phenonemon is stage hands in Hollywood who make a lot per hour on each film, but (predicably!) work only a fraction of the year, and get to claim unemployment insurance based on high per-hour earnings over that time between productions. Complete abuse of the system.
A divorce lawyer should know all the ins and outs of patent law then?
Not *immediately*, no, but they're more familiar with how to navigate statutes to find out what is and isn't legal, easier access to such databases, etc., where the common man has to get accustomed to the task first. You know, that's what law school is fucking for.
I feel like I'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here, but wtf is up with a lawyer collecting unemployment checks? That is the dickish behavior. Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs. When you make as much as a lawyer does, you should be doing something called "saving money" -- it shouldn't be much of a hardship for you, given that part-time elected officials (such as in state legislatures that don't work the full year) tend to be lawyers because they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.
Of course, the unemployment insurance laws may very well not make this distinction, making her within her rights to apply for it, but still, it seems like a slimy thing to do and makes it harder on the people who really need that money. I mean, what next? CEOs taking unemployment for the one month between two $50,000/month jobs?
On top of that, if the other poster is correct that she dutifully *reported* the blogging income, and is a lawyer, meaning she should be able to quickly know the ins and outs of the law -- then she should have known damn well that you're not supposed to collect unemployment while collecting a separate steady income, no matter how small. She was trying to double-dip: collect unemployment, *and* prohibited extra income on the side. Knowing this, she should should have turned off that revenue source long ago, not just when she got caught.
Did you actually try it out yourself? I bought into Numenta's hype and downloaded this program, and it was laughably bad. It "learns" a list of objects and shows it can recognize them, but when I modified the test images just a little bit and fed them to it, it failed miserably. That's especially bad considering how low res the images are and how they're the same size.
Numenta is only different in having a disprportionately large marketing budget. (Yes, I took the plunge and read On Intelligence.)
Okay, I agree with what you just said, so let me now take it back to your claim that even after the shoe is thrown into the black hole, you as an observer gain some predictive power over the Hawking radiation.
First of all, you are correct that the mutual information is an artifact of considering the systems together rather than in isolation, and that it must be subtracted to find the total entropy of the universe.
Furthermore, if you are able to transcend the perspective of an observer in the universe, you would see both entropy and information being conserved as a consequence of Liouville's Theorem, due to the conservation of phase space. However, as the LW link you gave explained, if you want to draw a *smooth boundary* over the squiggly phase space volume, you will necessarily characterize many more states as being possible than really are, giving the appearance of an increase in entropy, which is how any in-universe observer experiences it.
Applying this back to the question of the black hole: you are correct that there is a sense in which the information in the shoe is preserved, but only from the perspective of a timeless being outside the universe. From the perspective of beings in the universe, it has destroyed all mutual information that such observers would have with the shoe, *except* for knowledge that it was "something" with a certain level of mass-energy. This destruction of mutual information means an increase the universe's entropy (again, from the perspective of anyone within the universe).
The Hawking radiation would therefore not tell you anything about the object thrown in that would tell you it was a shoe, rather than something else with the same mass energy. So yes, you get some predictive power from that, but you would not get any predictive power that you would have from knowing anything about its shape, etc.
With all due respect, I still think the mistake is on your end, in that you seem to equate entropy, information, and informational entropy.
Entropy refers to the logarithm of the number of possible states a system could be in, based on what you can observe about it. (And of course to fully generalize it, you actually sum over the probability times log of the inverse of probability, which is Shannon entropy, to account for states not being equiprobable.)
Information, however, is the opposite of entropy: the more you know about a system (i.e. the more information you have about it), the less entropy it has (because you've reduced the number of states it could possibly be in -- that's the point Less Wrong makes about how knowing more about particles makes them colder.)
The Maxwell's Demon refutation shows that *entropy* cannot be destroyed (summed over all the universe), including informational entropy. But *information* can be destroyed -- by its conversion into entropy, or increase in the number of possible states it can be in. (In the example, after using the knowledge the demon had, the mutual *information* between the demon and the system is indeed destroyed.) What physicists warn cannot happen is destruction of entropy: collapsing mutliple states into one state, which would violate Liouville's Theorem.
Because entropy represents the number of states something can be in (from an observer's perspective), it represents the maximum information that could potentially be stored in it, assuming you could somehow retrieve it (by identifying *which* of those states it's in). But this still does not mean information can't be destroyed. If a solid object has a shape, then many of its degrees of freedom are constrained, and so it has lower entropy than if it were a gas. Once converted to a gas, that information about its shape is gone -- the object no longer contains information about its shape, and it can't be recovered except by e.g. using other media to store the shape.
When a black hole converts the shoe into Hawking radiation, it removes all degrees of freedom that make the shoe have the form of a shoe rather than some formless gaseous blog. And from that random Hawking radiation, you can't extract the shape back out. So this statement is just confused:
All the information entropy is preserved, and every bit of it is present in the resulting Hawking Radiation
Entropy *increases*, while information is not preserved. All that you can predict is that it had m*c^2 worth of energy added to it, but you cannot know anything else about the shoe -- it has been converted to a state of maximal entropy, no longer having its DoFs constrained -- information -- that contained the information of it being a shoe.
The Romans tried growing wine in England, but they failed, producing very poor quality wine:
LOL! "Poor quality wine"? That can only mean that they didn't define "liking Britannia wine" as part of what it meant to be a "good cultured Roman citizen".
Seriously, wine "quality" is totally an artifact of the social consensus.
I'm not trying to use the old "they used to make wine in England" argument, nor am I trying to deny the significance of global warming, but one data point I would completely ignore is wine "quality".
I don't know what the Maxwell's Demon refutation has to do with what I posted. I agree with all of that, and am familiar with it. In fact, I've helped to promote that very link you gave about Engines of Cognition.
But anyway, I agree that perhaps I went too far in saying that no information escapes. Rather, the minimum possible information escapes. You can infer the total mass-energy that went into a black hole based on what comes out, but that's it. A black hole still removes all constraints on the degrees of freedom of a system that keep it from having the entropy that a black hole would. The degrees of freedom are constrained when e.g. the object has shape, a specific pattern of motion, remains a solid rather than a liquid, etc. We recognize such constraints as information.
So you would be able to know the energy of the shoe or chicken that went into the black hole, but any information differentiating that shoe from any other object with the same energy is gone.
Everything that comes into a black hole comes back out eventually via Hawking Radiation. It goes in as a star or a chicken or a pistachio and comes out as random energy, which is a pretty clear increase in entropy.
Exactly. Another way to think about it is this: the speed of light is the maximum speed information can travel. Since the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light, information cannot escape either.
Because information cannot escape, it means you cannot infer what went into a black hole by looking at what comes out. (Note: information being "destroyed" in a black hole doesn't prevent you from e.g. keeping a record of what you tossed into a black hole. Once it goes inside, it won't somehow destroy your records, as I used to believe was the implication.)
So the Hawking radiation must be completely uncorrelated with what went into the black hole, except that the rate of radiation emission must depend on the temperature of the black hole (which would increase from turning objects into heat). This in turn means that to give the least information possible, Hawking radiation must be the lowest quality (highest entropy) form of energy in the universe.
And, if that doesn't make sense, just keep in mind that destruction of information is thermodynamically irreversible, so a black hole must increase entropy that way.
In my opinion, the long-term return on NSF spending is orders of magnitude greater than what we'll get back on military, entitlement, or even NIH spending.
Not to mention the bailouts. This suggests that the government blew five times the NSF's annual budget (of $6 billion) on propping up GM. (Of course, it's really hard to tabulate how much a handout they got. Some of it is low-interest loans, which have to be valued relative to the market price of GM bonds, some of it is a loan that's instantly forgiven, etc.)
And that's a drop in the bucket compared to the financial industry...
Sure, I'll tell that to a rape victim: all five or six that got HIV that way out of the millions who got it some other way.
And sure, my comment may not have been PC, but read the facts! Of the people who would be helped by a vaccine (i.e. not fetuses or infants), the second most common way to get it is from anal. Even unprotected penis-to-vagina sex still has a low risk, which casts doubt on the whole rape thing.
Seriously, refraining from engaging in a type of sex that's disgusting, unhealthy, and painful anyway is a pretty cheap way to protect yourself. If you're not willing to do that, um, *why* again, are we spending billions to protect you? Sheesh. I know of a billion people more deserving of that money than individuals (NOT NECESSARILY GAY) who just *have to have to have to* have one kind of sex without consequences. Ya know?
It's not a pleasant fact, but the truth is like that.
Well, that is how it works. I've dodged two traffic tickets in the same county in less than a year with one simple strategy: act submissive. The last time, I acted all afraid of the officer and when he asked me what I was worried about, I said something about my mom being upset with me when she finds out I got pulled over (was 27 at the time). Then the officer gave me a blank stare and let me off with a written warning.
Nope. I'm saying that a model must explain (i.e. simplify, shorten the length needed to describe) our observation. A model that says the galaxy is a large-scale brain does not explain our observations because a brain with that neuron distance could only have thought for maybe one month-equivalent (due to the speed of light), which therefore makes it unable to account for any observations we can't already explain without an assumption.
That has nothing to do with whether something acts on our timescales.
I just did, but in case it wasn't clear: modeling the universe (or some mutli-stellar-level substructure) as a nervous system would at best predict that the universe has done a bio-equivalent month of thought, which tells us nothing about what we should expect to see, and therefore adds complexity to our model of physics without increasing its predictive power.
Right, except for that whole "speed of light" thing, puts a real damper on signal propagation between these stellar neurons.
Given the estimated age of the universe, such a nervous system could have gone through *maybe* the equivalent of a month of thought in a biological brain, which isn't much.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to rule out hypotheses like this.
But once the crazy piracy $$ started rolling in (many times more than they ever made in the best of times fishing),
Really? Is that money more than the cost of all the illnesses and deaths [1] wrought by the toxic dumping, plus the present-discounted value of future fish and sea resources? If not, they haven't been made whole after what's been done to them.
Again, I want to make absolutely clear that I don't think piracy is the right response. They should have sent clan representatives to international bodies (UN, Arab League, EU, international sea organizations, etc.) to ask for respect for their coastal right before any large-scale violence.
But just the same, the poor motives of many of the pirates doesn't detract from their cause. If you believed a certain war was justified, would you change your opinion on learning that most soldiers fighting in it were just there for the soldier's pay and benefits?
[1]dangit, that nasty issue of "value of a human life" pops up again!
This has long been suspected, and there's a connection to Somali piracy. The mysterious blogger "TokyoTom" has an excellent summary of the research indicating that European companies were using the lack of a government in Somali to dump toxic waste illegally near the coast of Somali, which really wreaked havoc after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, which washed a lot of the crap onshore and caused mass illness.
There were always suspicious that this illegal dumping was a money source for the Mafia, although even legit businesses seem to have no problem with it. I don't defend Somali pirates, but people forget that it originated from fishers trying to get illegal dumpers to leave the area, then to try to get compensation for what the dumpers did. This doesn't justify piracy, but it does give lie to the notion that they lack a legitimate grievance and are simply out for money, and it helps to explain why they enjoy such support from Somalians.
I'm surprised the Mafia didn't screw up so bad sooner.
No, in that there really is no "unknown position" of the electron that we learn after observing. Its amplitude distribution *is* its existence, at the most fundamental level. You get a much worse model if you assume the electron actually is moving through some path that you just don't know yet.
Yes, in that your act of observing the electron has an effect on it. But what's really going on is that you're "decohering" with the electron such that your relative state (relationship between you and the electron) now only has it at one point. Going by the many-worlds interpretation, there are other "you"s that perform the same act and see it shrink down to a different point. The multiple "you"s are decoherent and can no longer interact with each other.
Aside: "observation" has nothing to do with consciousness; it's just the creation of mutual information between two bodies. In other words, making it so that learning one tells you something about the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, I know three lawyers off the top of my head: one charges $250/hour in Denver, another $130/hour near Denver, the other $400/hour in Houston.
When you have a job where the work is sporadic but you make a lot *per hour*, it's just the nature of the beast that you're supposed to be fucking *saving* for the predictable dry spells.
Another example of this phenonemon is stage hands in Hollywood who make a lot per hour on each film, but (predicably!) work only a fraction of the year, and get to claim unemployment insurance based on high per-hour earnings over that time between productions. Complete abuse of the system.
A divorce lawyer should know all the ins and outs of patent law then?
Not *immediately*, no, but they're more familiar with how to navigate statutes to find out what is and isn't legal, easier access to such databases, etc., where the common man has to get accustomed to the task first. You know, that's what law school is fucking for.
I feel like I'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here, but wtf is up with a lawyer collecting unemployment checks? That is the dickish behavior. Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs. When you make as much as a lawyer does, you should be doing something called "saving money" -- it shouldn't be much of a hardship for you, given that part-time elected officials (such as in state legislatures that don't work the full year) tend to be lawyers because they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.
Of course, the unemployment insurance laws may very well not make this distinction, making her within her rights to apply for it, but still, it seems like a slimy thing to do and makes it harder on the people who really need that money. I mean, what next? CEOs taking unemployment for the one month between two $50,000/month jobs?
On top of that, if the other poster is correct that she dutifully *reported* the blogging income, and is a lawyer, meaning she should be able to quickly know the ins and outs of the law -- then she should have known damn well that you're not supposed to collect unemployment while collecting a separate steady income, no matter how small. She was trying to double-dip: collect unemployment, *and* prohibited extra income on the side. Knowing this, she should should have turned off that revenue source long ago, not just when she got caught.
Did you actually try it out yourself? I bought into Numenta's hype and downloaded this program, and it was laughably bad. It "learns" a list of objects and shows it can recognize them, but when I modified the test images just a little bit and fed them to it, it failed miserably. That's especially bad considering how low res the images are and how they're the same size.
Numenta is only different in having a disprportionately large marketing budget. (Yes, I took the plunge and read On Intelligence.)
I've definitely found this to be a useful and thought-provoking discussion.
Same here. Thanks for the replies. :-)
Okay, I agree with what you just said, so let me now take it back to your claim that even after the shoe is thrown into the black hole, you as an observer gain some predictive power over the Hawking radiation.
First of all, you are correct that the mutual information is an artifact of considering the systems together rather than in isolation, and that it must be subtracted to find the total entropy of the universe.
Furthermore, if you are able to transcend the perspective of an observer in the universe, you would see both entropy and information being conserved as a consequence of Liouville's Theorem, due to the conservation of phase space. However, as the LW link you gave explained, if you want to draw a *smooth boundary* over the squiggly phase space volume, you will necessarily characterize many more states as being possible than really are, giving the appearance of an increase in entropy, which is how any in-universe observer experiences it.
Applying this back to the question of the black hole: you are correct that there is a sense in which the information in the shoe is preserved, but only from the perspective of a timeless being outside the universe. From the perspective of beings in the universe, it has destroyed all mutual information that such observers would have with the shoe, *except* for knowledge that it was "something" with a certain level of mass-energy. This destruction of mutual information means an increase the universe's entropy (again, from the perspective of anyone within the universe).
The Hawking radiation would therefore not tell you anything about the object thrown in that would tell you it was a shoe, rather than something else with the same mass energy. So yes, you get some predictive power from that, but you would not get any predictive power that you would have from knowing anything about its shape, etc.
Are we in agreement on this?
With all due respect, I still think the mistake is on your end, in that you seem to equate entropy, information, and informational entropy.
Entropy refers to the logarithm of the number of possible states a system could be in, based on what you can observe about it. (And of course to fully generalize it, you actually sum over the probability times log of the inverse of probability, which is Shannon entropy, to account for states not being equiprobable.)
Information, however, is the opposite of entropy: the more you know about a system (i.e. the more information you have about it), the less entropy it has (because you've reduced the number of states it could possibly be in -- that's the point Less Wrong makes about how knowing more about particles makes them colder.)
The Maxwell's Demon refutation shows that *entropy* cannot be destroyed (summed over all the universe), including informational entropy. But *information* can be destroyed -- by its conversion into entropy, or increase in the number of possible states it can be in. (In the example, after using the knowledge the demon had, the mutual *information* between the demon and the system is indeed destroyed.) What physicists warn cannot happen is destruction of entropy: collapsing mutliple states into one state, which would violate Liouville's Theorem.
Because entropy represents the number of states something can be in (from an observer's perspective), it represents the maximum information that could potentially be stored in it, assuming you could somehow retrieve it (by identifying *which* of those states it's in). But this still does not mean information can't be destroyed. If a solid object has a shape, then many of its degrees of freedom are constrained, and so it has lower entropy than if it were a gas. Once converted to a gas, that information about its shape is gone -- the object no longer contains information about its shape, and it can't be recovered except by e.g. using other media to store the shape.
When a black hole converts the shoe into Hawking radiation, it removes all degrees of freedom that make the shoe have the form of a shoe rather than some formless gaseous blog. And from that random Hawking radiation, you can't extract the shape back out. So this statement is just confused:
Entropy *increases*, while information is not preserved. All that you can predict is that it had m*c^2 worth of energy added to it, but you cannot know anything else about the shoe -- it has been converted to a state of maximal entropy, no longer having its DoFs constrained -- information -- that contained the information of it being a shoe.
Some of my friends and I are planning to drive down to the set in Arizona where they'll be filming it.
I agree with you on that. I thought I was clear about it :-/
The Romans tried growing wine in England, but they failed, producing very poor quality wine:
LOL! "Poor quality wine"? That can only mean that they didn't define "liking Britannia wine" as part of what it meant to be a "good cultured Roman citizen".
Seriously, wine "quality" is totally an artifact of the social consensus.
I'm not trying to use the old "they used to make wine in England" argument, nor am I trying to deny the significance of global warming, but one data point I would completely ignore is wine "quality".
I don't know what the Maxwell's Demon refutation has to do with what I posted. I agree with all of that, and am familiar with it. In fact, I've helped to promote that very link you gave about Engines of Cognition.
But anyway, I agree that perhaps I went too far in saying that no information escapes. Rather, the minimum possible information escapes. You can infer the total mass-energy that went into a black hole based on what comes out, but that's it. A black hole still removes all constraints on the degrees of freedom of a system that keep it from having the entropy that a black hole would. The degrees of freedom are constrained when e.g. the object has shape, a specific pattern of motion, remains a solid rather than a liquid, etc. We recognize such constraints as information.
So you would be able to know the energy of the shoe or chicken that went into the black hole, but any information differentiating that shoe from any other object with the same energy is gone.
And there's still no universal scientific consensus that Hawking won the bet.
Everything that comes into a black hole comes back out eventually via Hawking Radiation. It goes in as a star or a chicken or a pistachio and comes out as random energy, which is a pretty clear increase in entropy.
Exactly. Another way to think about it is this: the speed of light is the maximum speed information can travel. Since the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light, information cannot escape either.
Because information cannot escape, it means you cannot infer what went into a black hole by looking at what comes out. (Note: information being "destroyed" in a black hole doesn't prevent you from e.g. keeping a record of what you tossed into a black hole. Once it goes inside, it won't somehow destroy your records, as I used to believe was the implication.)
So the Hawking radiation must be completely uncorrelated with what went into the black hole, except that the rate of radiation emission must depend on the temperature of the black hole (which would increase from turning objects into heat). This in turn means that to give the least information possible, Hawking radiation must be the lowest quality (highest entropy) form of energy in the universe.
And, if that doesn't make sense, just keep in mind that destruction of information is thermodynamically irreversible, so a black hole must increase entropy that way.
Hm, okay, so first there was sex for food, and then there was the food for oil program ... so when is there going to be oil for sex?
Oh right, vaseline.
In my opinion, the long-term return on NSF spending is orders of magnitude greater than what we'll get back on military, entitlement, or even NIH spending.
Not to mention the bailouts. This suggests that the government blew five times the NSF's annual budget (of $6 billion) on propping up GM. (Of course, it's really hard to tabulate how much a handout they got. Some of it is low-interest loans, which have to be valued relative to the market price of GM bonds, some of it is a loan that's instantly forgiven, etc.)
And that's a drop in the bucket compared to the financial industry...
*checks genitals*
No, it worked for me too.
Sure, I'll tell that to a rape victim: all five or six that got HIV that way out of the millions who got it some other way.
And sure, my comment may not have been PC, but read the facts! Of the people who would be helped by a vaccine (i.e. not fetuses or infants), the second most common way to get it is from anal. Even unprotected penis-to-vagina sex still has a low risk, which casts doubt on the whole rape thing.
Seriously, refraining from engaging in a type of sex that's disgusting, unhealthy, and painful anyway is a pretty cheap way to protect yourself. If you're not willing to do that, um, *why* again, are we spending billions to protect you? Sheesh. I know of a billion people more deserving of that money than individuals (NOT NECESSARILY GAY) who just *have to have to have to* have one kind of sex without consequences. Ya know?
It's not a pleasant fact, but the truth is like that.
Okay, but if we're just talking about preventative measures, why not just tell people not to have anal sex, which is the primary mode of transmission?
Well, that is how it works. I've dodged two traffic tickets in the same county in less than a year with one simple strategy: act submissive. The last time, I acted all afraid of the officer and when he asked me what I was worried about, I said something about my mom being upset with me when she finds out I got pulled over (was 27 at the time). Then the officer gave me a blank stare and let me off with a written warning.
But a shitload of acronyms *do* appear in your post...
Nope. I'm saying that a model must explain (i.e. simplify, shorten the length needed to describe) our observation. A model that says the galaxy is a large-scale brain does not explain our observations because a brain with that neuron distance could only have thought for maybe one month-equivalent (due to the speed of light), which therefore makes it unable to account for any observations we can't already explain without an assumption.
That has nothing to do with whether something acts on our timescales.
I just did, but in case it wasn't clear: modeling the universe (or some mutli-stellar-level substructure) as a nervous system would at best predict that the universe has done a bio-equivalent month of thought, which tells us nothing about what we should expect to see, and therefore adds complexity to our model of physics without increasing its predictive power.
Right, except for that whole "speed of light" thing, puts a real damper on signal propagation between these stellar neurons.
Given the estimated age of the universe, such a nervous system could have gone through *maybe* the equivalent of a month of thought in a biological brain, which isn't much.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to rule out hypotheses like this.
But once the crazy piracy $$ started rolling in (many times more than they ever made in the best of times fishing),
Really? Is that money more than the cost of all the illnesses and deaths [1] wrought by the toxic dumping, plus the present-discounted value of future fish and sea resources? If not, they haven't been made whole after what's been done to them.
Again, I want to make absolutely clear that I don't think piracy is the right response. They should have sent clan representatives to international bodies (UN, Arab League, EU, international sea organizations, etc.) to ask for respect for their coastal right before any large-scale violence.
But just the same, the poor motives of many of the pirates doesn't detract from their cause. If you believed a certain war was justified, would you change your opinion on learning that most soldiers fighting in it were just there for the soldier's pay and benefits?
[1]dangit, that nasty issue of "value of a human life" pops up again!
This has long been suspected, and there's a connection to Somali piracy. The mysterious blogger "TokyoTom" has an excellent summary of the research indicating that European companies were using the lack of a government in Somali to dump toxic waste illegally near the coast of Somali, which really wreaked havoc after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, which washed a lot of the crap onshore and caused mass illness.
There were always suspicious that this illegal dumping was a money source for the Mafia, although even legit businesses seem to have no problem with it. I don't defend Somali pirates, but people forget that it originated from fishers trying to get illegal dumpers to leave the area, then to try to get compensation for what the dumpers did. This doesn't justify piracy, but it does give lie to the notion that they lack a legitimate grievance and are simply out for money, and it helps to explain why they enjoy such support from Somalians.
I'm surprised the Mafia didn't screw up so bad sooner.
Yes and no.
No, in that there really is no "unknown position" of the electron that we learn after observing. Its amplitude distribution *is* its existence, at the most fundamental level. You get a much worse model if you assume the electron actually is moving through some path that you just don't know yet.
Yes, in that your act of observing the electron has an effect on it. But what's really going on is that you're "decohering" with the electron such that your relative state (relationship between you and the electron) now only has it at one point. Going by the many-worlds interpretation, there are other "you"s that perform the same act and see it shrink down to a different point. The multiple "you"s are decoherent and can no longer interact with each other.
Aside: "observation" has nothing to do with consciousness; it's just the creation of mutual information between two bodies. In other words, making it so that learning one tells you something about the other.
"Nice try. I observed you ejaculating three seconds into it."
Then you don't know how much energy I put into it -- provably!