# Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

```
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent meeker writes:
>
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Jones writes:
> > >
> > >>> I think it is simpler to go back to your own clones-in-the-next-room
> > >>> example
> > >>> rather than introducing the complication of neurophysiology (or indeed
> > >>> physics).
> > >>> You are informed that your current stream of consciousness is either
> > >>> being
> > >>> generated by
> > >>>
> > >>> (a) a temporal sequence of clones, each of which lives for a second,
> > >>> then is
> > >>> instantly killed, and replaced by the next one in the series a
> > >>> microsecond later
> > >>>
> > >>> or
> > >>>
> > >>> (b) a spatial series of clones, each of which lives for a second, then
> > >>> is instantly
> > >>> killed, such that the whole experiment goes for a second but uses
> > >>> multiple
> > >>>
> > >>> You have to guess whether you are in experiment (a) or (b). If
> > >>> appropriate care
> > >>> is taken to provide you with no external clues do you think you would
> > >>> be able to
> > >>> guess the right answer with greater than 1/2 probability?
> > >> It's quite possible that neither scenario can support a
> > >> subjective flow of time.
> > >
> > > Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving
> > > against a
> > > stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object seems
> > > to instantly
> > > jump 10 metres in the direction of motion, and then continues as before
> > > at 10 m/s. You
> > > are informed that one of the following three events has taken place:
> > >
> > > (a) your consciousness was suspended for 1 second, as in an absence
> > > seizure;
> > >
> > > (b) you were scanned, annihilated, and a perfect copy created in your
> > > place 1 second
> > > later;
> > >
> > > (c) nothing unusual happened to you, but the object you were watching was
> > > instantly
> > > teleported 10 metres in the direction of motion.
> > >
> > > Would you be able to guess which of the three events took place?
> > >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > Sure, it was (a).  (c) violates the laws of physics.  (b) might or might
> > not be theoretically possible, but it's practically impossible.
>
> OK, you would probably be right if you were kidnapped and subjected to this
> experiment
> tomorrow. But it's a thought experiment, and my point is that from your
> conscious
> experience alone you would be unable to distinguish between the three cases.
> Peter Jones'
> posts seem to imply that you would notice a difference.```
```
You have to say that, given a particular theory of consciousness,
would you notice a difference. If physical counterfactuals/causality
is important, you could in  cases a) and b), since they
all involve an abnormal causal transition from one OM to
then next. Given computationalism, it is less straightforward.

> Stathis Papaioannou
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
> http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d

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