Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 30-juin-06, à 20:43, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>There is no false 1-memories. Only an association between some
>>1-memory and some 3-reality can be false. If someone succeeds in
>>implementing correctly (more than just coherently) false beliefs (like
>>I am Napoleon just after Waterloo), then I will believe correctly that
>>I am Napoleon and that I have just lose a battle, almost by
>>definition. I will have to go in an asylum, sure, but my
>>1-memory of the past is correct given that they have been correctly
>>What does "correctly implemented" mean?  Doesn't it reference some 3rd 
>>person standard of "correct"?
> Yes. Like in a plane with an altimeter telling the plane is 1 miles 
> above the sea, when the plane actually  *is* 1 miles above the sea 
> (with respect to its most probable relative computation history).
> "Correctly implemented" means---assuming comp and thus assuming the 
> existence of the substitution level---that the doctor has luckily 
> implemented the "Napoleon's software" at that correct level (or below).

This seems circular - "correctly implemented" means a the "correct level (or 
below)".  Suppose the 
implementation caused Napoleon-2 to believe he had just won the Battle of 
Waterloo.  That is a 
conflict which seems to imply an incorrect implementation.  But is it incorrect 
because of the 
historical fact that he lost, or because of the 1st person fact that Napoleon-1 
didn't believe he 
had won.  Suppose Napoleon-1 did believe he had won?

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to