Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

```
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:```
```
```
```On 8/16/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```

On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:

```
```On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```

On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:

```
```On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
```
```
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
```the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
```
```
```
I don't see this. Why would the generator being part of you make it your choice? You might define "me" and "part of me" before. It is not clear if you are using the usual computer science notion of me, or not, but I would say that if the root of the choice is a random oracle, then the random oracle makes the choice for me. It does not matter if the coin is in or outside my brain, which is a local non absolute notion.
```
```
I'd say the crucial difference is whether you chose to use the random oracle (i.e. flip a coin) or you make a random decision (due to a K40 decay) without knowing it.
```
If I don't it, in what sense is it my free personal decision?
```
```
```
Don't do which? You can flip a coin and then change your mind and not do what it indicates, so whether to follow the coin or not is your decision. The decision due to the K40 decay is just another branch in Everett's multiverse.
```
```
Apology. I meant: if I don't know it. If I flip a coin and don't respect the output, the decision is mine indeed, but if I stick to my decision of following the random result, then, well, that decision (to follow the coin) is mine, but the decision to drink tea instead of coffee, with the coin, is the coin or God decision. I refer to the coin, and not to me. I can say that I abandon my decision to the coin throwing process. I stop to decide.
```
```
It seems that it's a question of demarcating a somewhat fuzzy boundary between "me" and the rest of the world. As Dennett says, "You can avoid responsibility for everything if you just make yourself small enough." You often refer to the person as the 1p view 'from the inside'.
```
```
The person is the subject who believe to have that view. he believes for example that he is the one in W, after the duplication. But the person is more abstract and complex than any of his 1-view. The knower, Bp & p, is already closer to the notion of person, for a better approximation.
```

```
How 'big' is the person in this theory? What's the boundary between the person and the world he sees from his 1p view?
```
```
Only the person can answer that, and according to different experience, can give very different answer. Still, we can reason from semi-axiomatic presentation, and that answer is not needed for the reasoning. I current feeling, I can tell you, is that the number of possible person is either one, or two, but no more. I tend to think that all living creature are the same person, or the same double person, as we might need to be two to be conscious, somehow. I am not sure.
```
Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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