Tom Caylor wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 27-oct.-06, à 13:04, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : > > > > > > > > Hi Stathis, > > > > > > Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > >> 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 > > > > > > The problem with these kind of thoughts experiments is that we don't > > > know how > > > consciousness "works", we don't know if we can make a "perfect copy", > > > we > > > can't know (currently) if such a copy would be conscious as we don't > > > know how > > > conscious experience arise. > > > > > > That is why we are proposing theories. It seems to me that the > > computationalist hypothesis entails the answer "no" to Stathis > > question. > > Are you OK with this? (Of course, other hypotheses (like some weakening > > of comp for example) could also lead to the answer no. > > > > > > > > > Taking the premises of the problem you gave, it > > > is impossible to give a (right) answer (if there is one...). You > > > presupose > > > too much on what is consciousness and how it works (not that it is a > > > bad > > > thing, but I think these examples won't convince someone who have not > > > the > > > same view on you about what is consciousness and how it works). > > > > > > I think that the point of Stathis was illustrating comp or some > > weakening of it. > > > > Is there someone in the list who find simultaneously both comp *and* a > > "yes" answer to Stathis' question plausible? > > > > > > Bruno > > Is there a difference in the answer to Stathis' question for this > thought experiment, and the answer to Stathis' question for the > equalivent thought experiment except for the following? > > (a) your consciousness was suspended for 0 seconds > > (b) you were scanned, annihilated, and a perfect copy created in your > place 0 seconds later > > (c) nothing unusual happened to you, but the object you were watching > was instantly teleported 0 metres in the direction of motion. > > At first (a) and (c) seem identical, but I take "teleported" here to > mean (for the sake of simplicity!) the same thing as was done to you in > (b). > > What is happening in (a)? Let's say that the same rigamarole as in the > original thought experiment (to keep as much as possible equal between > the two experiments!) is done, except that 1 is replaced by 0. > > I mean, why would a delay make any difference to the argument? That's > equivalent to one of the steps in Bruno's UDA. > > Actually, let's change the 0 to epsilon and let epsilon approach zero, > so instead of a "0 second" argument, we have an "epsilon second" > argument. > > Well then, what have we here in the "epsilon second" experiment? It > seems to simply argue that we don't know what the heck is happening in > our universe from one instant to the next. I can think of a lot of > TOEs that say that. > > But on the other hand, we do have some very good models in physics that > say we actually can predict with minimal uncertainty what will happen > over time. > > So the conclusion of my thought is that perhaps such thought > experiments, as well as Bruno's UDA, are just inserting white rabbits > constructively into the universe. No wonder the conclusion is that we > don't know what's happening (a la Bruno's indeterminacies). > > Tom
To make my point clearer, make a change to the "epsilon second" argument wherein, during the technological rigmarole involved in (a) consciousness suspension (b) duplication with annihilation (b) teleportation, in between pushing buttons the Doctor dances a jig. Also, I realize that, as epsilon approaches zero, the speed at which the rigmarole is done (and how fast the Doctor dances) has to approach infinity. But this is just a matter of degree of prowess. Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
