On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Has someone already mentioned this?
> > I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make
> > sense...or...
> > The idea of saying yes to the doctor presumes that we, in the thought
> > experiment, bring to the thought experiment universe:
> > 1. our sense of own significance (we have to be able to care about
> > ourselves and our fate in the first place)
> I can't see why you would think that is incompatible with CTM
It is not posed as a question of 'Do you believe that CTM includes X',
but rather, 'using X, do you believe that there is any reason to doubt
that Y(X) is X.'
> > 2. our perceptual capacity to jump to conclusions without logic (we
> > have to be able feel what it seems like rather than know what it
> > simply is.)
> Whereas that seems to be based on a mistake. It might be
> that our conclusions ARE based on logic, just logic that
> we are consciously unaware of.
That's a good point but it could just as easily be based on
subconscious idiopathic preferences. The patterns of human beings in
guessing and betting vary from person to person whereas one of the
hallmarks of computation is to get the same results. By default,
everything that a computer does is mechanistic. We have to go out of
our way to generate sophisticated algorithms to emulate naturalistic
human patterns. Human development proves just the contrary. We start
out wild and willful and become more mechanistic through
> Altenatively, they might
> just be illogical...even if we are computers. It is a subtle
> fallacy to say that computers run on logic: they run on rules.
Yes! This is why they have a trivial intelligence and no true
understanding. Rule followers are dumb. Logic is a form of
intelligence which we use to write these rules that write more rules.
The more rules you have, the better the machine, but no amount of
rules make the machine more (or less) logical. Humans vary widely in
their preference for logic, emotion, pragmatism, leadership, etc.
Computers don't vary at all in their approach. It is all the same rule
follower only with different rules.
> They have no guarantee to be rational. If the rules are
> wrong, you have bugs. Humans are known to have
> any number of cognitive bugs. The "jumping" thing
> could be implemented by real or pseudo randomness, too.
> > Because of 1, it is assumed that the thought experiment universe
> > includes the subjective experience of personal value - that the
> > patient has a stake, or 'money to bet'.
> What's the problem ? the experience (quale) or the value?
The significance of the quale.
> Do you know the value to be real?
I know it to be subjective.
> Do you think a computer
> could not be deluded about value?
I think a computer can't be anything but turned off and on.
> > Because of 2, it is assumed
> > that libertarian free will exists in the scenario
> I don't see that FW of a specifically libertarian aort is posited
> in the scenario. It just assumes you can make a choice in
> some sense.
It assumes that choice is up to you and not determined by
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at