Stephen, thanks for a new English word for me: caterwauling. I like it. Sun'ichi Amari writes in a field I do not intend to penetrate and I have a hard time to comprehend videos - even if they are not in Japanese-English. I confess: I did not find too much connection in your text to my post. Maybe it is my fault. Thanks anyway JohnM
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > On 3/23/2012 11:47 AM, John Mikes wrote: > > Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply - > I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quantum') I speak > about the concept: "uncertainty" is inherent in whatever we think about, > because in our 'model' of the knowable world there is only part of the > total (see the historical additions and project such to the future) and we > THINK about yesterday's knowable as "all of them". Accordingly EVERYTHING > is uncertain. Logic, too. > > Intercourse does not create babies: it gives a chance to a sperm and egg > to find each other in a way to start a genome. You can do it in a > test-tube. And - the babies are human beings, with (working?) complexity > including mental aspects, (even in mentally impaired persons) which > develops in the course of gestation - according to Princeton's Singer even > later, after birth. So please, do not fall for the political haruspexs > who cry 'murder' in case of an abortion, the murder is saved for killing > persons, i.e. full complexities developed and evolved from the > parasite-state (embryo - fetus) into a substantial HUMAN being. > Now about identicity: > If you look for it... there are similarities in many unexpected relations > between off springs and ancestors, maybe not the total ones as e.g. a > clone, but the > identicity lives on in the genetic sequences. > BTW: what do you mean by "a mind" - to deem it "absolutely NEW"? > > I agree with your rejecting 'randomness, or stochasticity' mainly on the > basis of the above mentioned ignorance about the wholeness, but also on the > basis that 'unatached' occurrences would make ANY ordered description > futile. > Russell replied to an earlier such remark of mine with the correction into > (as I recall) "conditional randomness". Which is not random in my view. > > John M > > > Dear John, > > As to uncertainty, it seems to be a quisicrystal-coated beastie for > there are far to many models of it and probabilities in general. I long for > the day when a bright young mind figures of the path to unify the best of > these models and gives us a clear principle with which to reject the > nonsensical ones. The one that I like is Shun'ichi > Amari<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shun%27ichi_Amari>'s > "information geometry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Geometry>" > idea merely because it appeals to my visual type thinking. > > Fear not for I was only considering the unassisted version of > procreation as a default that is independent of the technologies of the > time and place... As I see it "personhood" is a function and not a "thing" > so I have a well reasoned (IMHO) aversion to the caterwaulings of those > that would merely appeal to emotion for as a justification of a claim. > Emotional revulsion is never proof to the contrary or impossibility. > > Onward! > > Stephen > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > >> On 3/22/2012 4:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 3/22/2012 1:31 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> >> This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's not your >>>> mathematics it's the assumption you make right at the start which is the >>>> foundation for everything else. >>>> >>> >>> > Which assumption? >>> >> >> Your assumption that if a identical copy of you is made everything may >> seen identical to a third party but to itself, to the copy and the >> original, they would somehow have different viewpoints even if everything >> they saw was the same and they remained identical. I think that is just >> plain wrong. Lately you seem to be equivocating somewhat on this point and >> everybody has a right to change their mind, but if you do then you'll have >> to rewrite your proof from page 1 because that assumption was important. >> >> > Those admit precise and simple definition, related to the duplication >>> and multiplication thought experience. >>> First person = content of a diary bring in the duplication devices. >>> >> >> OK, but the original and the copy will both write in their diaries "I >> walked into the duplicating chamber, the machine was turned on and a copy >> of me appeared right in front of me face to face", the copy and the >> original agree on what occurred, so according to you the first person >> perspective, the one that both you and I believe is most important, is >> identical; so there is only one perspective, one consciousness. >> >> >> I don't think Bruno disagreed with this. I know I didn't. The one >> consciousness only becomes two when there is something different - in the >> perception of the outside (Washington vs Moscow) or some random internal >> change. Your thought experiment shows that comp implies that persons >> bodies can be duplicated without duplicating their consciousness (at least >> for a moment or two). But as I said I don't see that this invalidates >> Bruno's argument which I take to be that quantum uncertainty can be modeled >> by uncertainty in personal identity. >> >> Hi Brent, >> >> Could you offer some sketch of how quantum uncertainty can be modeled >> by uncertainty in personal identity? The uncertainty of QM follows from the >> mathematical properties of canonical conjugates (roughly, there exists a >> Fourier transformation between them) and the general non-commutativity of >> observables (roughly, as they have complex number valued amplitudes). >> Quantum uncertainty is not "just randomness" or stochasticity, the >> evolution of QM systems is the template of a deterministic process. It is >> just that it is impossible to recover the information required to make a >> local prediction that makes it seem "classically random" (aka decoherence). >> I think that we are taking the "branching tree" analogy used by many to >> explain the many worlds interpretation way too literally here... We should >> disabuse ourselves of that concept. >> The uncertainty generated by the copy and paste operations of >> computation follows from the fissioning of the first person sense of self, >> so it is indeed generates a "branching tree graph" IFF we ignore >> cul-de-sacs and other delete operations, cycles and non-monotic relations. >> Additionally, we assume that conservation laws, which would be "no new >> rules or data" restrictions for computations. Where is the bridge >> connecting these concepts? What about the fact that intercourse between >> humans create "babies", which would be entirely new minds? How do they fix >> into these scheme? >> >> Onward! >> >> Stephen >> -- >> 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 >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.