Le 01-déc.-06, à 20:05, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Le 01-déc.-06, à 10:24, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>>> Bruno Marchal writes:
>>>>> We can assume that the structural difference makes a difference to
>>>>> consciousness but
>>>>> not external behaviour. For example, it may cause spectrum
>>>> Let us suppose you are right. This would mean that there is
>>>> substitution level such that the digital copy person would act AS IF
>>>> she has been duplicated at the correct level, but having or living a
>>>> (1-person) spectrum reversal.
>>>> Now what could that mean? Let us interview the copy and ask her the
>>>> color of the sky. Having the same external behavior as the original,
>>>> she will told us the usual answer: blue (I suppose a sunny day!).
>>>> So, apparently she is not 1-aware of that spectrum reversal. This
>>>> that from her 1-person point of view, there was no spectrum
>>>> but obviously there is no 3-description of it either ....
>>>> So I am not sure your assertion make sense. I agree that if we take
>>>> incorrect substitution level, the copy could experience a spectrum
>>>> reversal, but then the person will complain to her doctor saying
>>>> something like "I have not been copied correctly", and will not pay
>>>> doctor bill (but this is a different external behaviour, ok?)
>>> I don't doubt that there is some substitution level that preserves
>>> behaviour and 1st person experience, even if this turns out to mean
>>> a person to the same engineering tolerances as nature has specified
>>> for ordinary
>>> day to day life. The question is, is there some substitution level
>>> which preserves
>>> 3rd person behaviour but not 1st person experience? For example,
>>> you carried around with you a device which monitored all your
>>> behaviour in great
>>> detail, created predictive models, compared its predictions with your
>>> behaviour, and continuously refined its models. Over time, this
>>> might be
>>> able to mimic your behaviour closely enough such that it could take
>>> over control of
>>> your body from your brain and no-one would be able to tell that the
>>> had occurred. I don't think it would be unreasonable to wonder
>>> this copy
>>> experiences the same thing when it looks at the sky and declares it
>>> be blue as
>>> you do before the substitution.
>> Thanks for the precision.
>> It *is* as reasonable to ask such a question as it is reasonable to
>> if tomorrow my first person experience will not indeed permute my blue
>> and orange qualia *including my memories of it* in such a way that my
>> 3-behavior will remain unchanged. In that case we are back to the
>> original spectrum reversal problem.
>> This is a reasonable question in the sense that the answer can be
>> relatively (!) undecidable: it is not verifiable by any external
>> nor by the first person itself. We could as well conclude that such a
>> change occurs each time the magnetic poles permute, or that it changes
>> at each season, etc.
>> *But* (curiously enough perhaps) such a change can be shown to be
>> guess-able by some richer machine.
>> The spectrum reversal question points on the gap between the 1 and 3
>> descriptions. With acomp your question should be addressable in the
>> terms of the modal logic Z and X, or more precisely Z1* minus Z1 and
>> X1* minus X1, that is their true but unprovable (and undecidable)
>> propositions. Note that the question makes no sense at all for the
>> "pure 1-person" because S4Grz1* minus S4Grz1 is empty.
>> So your question makes sense because at the level of the fourth and
>> fifth hypo your question can be translated into purely arithmetical
>> propositions, which although highly undecidable by the machine itself
>> can be decided by some richer machine.
>> And I would say, without doing the calculus which is rather complex,
>> that the answer could very well be positive indeed, but this remains
>> be proved. At least the unexpected nuances between computability,
>> provability, knowability, observability, perceivability (all redefined
>> by modal variant of G) gives plenty room for this, indeed.
> So what does your calculus say about the experience of people who wear
> glasses which invert their field of vision?
This is just an adaptation process. If I remember people wearing those
glasses are aware of the inversion of their field of vision until their
brain generates an unconscious correction. All this can be explained
self-referentially in G without problem and even without mentioning the
qualia (which would need the Z* or X* ....). Stathis' remarks on the
existence of qualia changes without first person knowledge of the
change is far less obvious.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at