On 25 Jun 2012, at 18:24, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> The first person indeterminacy is a fact, with respect to comp.

First person indeterminacy is a fact with respect to ANYTHING, sometimes you don't know what you're going to do till you do it. I find your theoretical prediction of this less than impressive.

The question is do you agree with it, or not. So that we can move to step 4.

> And then if I luckily succeed in computing the electron mass 9.10938291×10-31kg, Brent will tell me that we already knew that, and ask for something else.

Don't be ridiculous! If you can produce the value of 9.10938291×10^ -31kg from nothing but pure numbers you would be universally hailed as the greatest logician or mathematician or physicist (there would no longer be any difference between the three professions) who ever lived. Philosophical theories are a dime a dozen but theories that can produce numbers are not, and theories where the numbers match the numbers obtained from experiment are even less common. If you want your ideas to go mainstream there is just no alternative, you've got to find a way for those ideas to churn out numbers, numbers that can be tested.

You ignore that we can test inequalities, even without probability. I do produce the description of the devices so that we can test the hypotheses. All you have to do is proceed in the argument, even if you need this to understand that it is more modest than you extrapolate.

Please do the reasoning, before extrapolating on assertions I do not provide.

> You need also to be interested in consciousness, and capable of distinguishing first and third person points of view

I'm interested in consciousness but I am not capable of always making the distinction between the first and third person points of view, but you have admitted you can't do it either. On March 27 2012 I said:

"Give me a example of 2 conscious beings that are identical by what you call "3-view" but NOT identical by what you call "1-view", show they deserve different names, do that and I might get a idea what you're talking about; but don't give me that diaries business, if the diaries are different a third party can see that just as well as the individuals who wrote them. Just one clear non mystical example where objectively 2 things are identical but subjectively they are not, that's all I ask and I don't think it's a unreasonable request as your proof depends on there being such a difference."

You responded to my request with:

"You ask me something impossible"

I agree it is impossible. I can conceive of 2 conscious minds being identical from the 1- view but not from the 3-view, for example a mind generated from a biological brain and a uploaded mind generated from a computer, in which case there really wouldn't be two minds but only one. However 2 minds identical from the 3- view but not from the 1-view makes no sense.

We agree on that indeed. And ?

For the reasoning, we don't have to attribute two first person povs to one 3-viewed machine, but to attribute one first person povs to two different 3-viewed machine, and eventually number relations.

It looks like you want me to believe that the relation of mind and machine is one-one, by telling me to give an example of 2 different minds for one machine, which we agree is impossible, but this does not mean that we cannot attach one mind to two different machines, or to two identical (similar at the subst. level) machine put in different environment, like Sidney and Beijing, for example.

It is crucially important, because machine cannot know in which computations there are among the infinities which exists in the solution of a universal diophantine equation, and in a sense, she belongs to all those computations that she cannot distinguishes. That makes a big infinity.

I am not solving a problem, I am reducing a "philosophical" problem to a mathematical problem, assuming comp.



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