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 >>implemented. >> >>======================================================= >> >>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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
