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

Reply via email to