On 3/24/2012 4:47 PM, John Mikes wrote:
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

Dear John,

I think in pictures/sensations and the connections that I see that exist might only be seen in the visual/proprioceptive mode of thinking. I am just happy that my posts are not considered as noise. ;-) One more thing; as I see it, "theories" are much like different points of view of one and the same object: the totality of that which exists. Sometimes a person's theory might just be about some small niche in their own minds and sometimes it might be of some thing that many minds have as a common commodity. BTW, my concept of the Totality of existence is very much like that of Hegel, if you are familiar with Hegel's work....



On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto: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.



    On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto: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
        <mailto: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

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?


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to