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