On 8/29/2012 10:39 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2012/8/29 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

    On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
    the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It
    has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is
    moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its
    debts and merits with others.

    Hi Albert,

        Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of
    memory and how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. "I am
    what I remember myself to be."

in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me.

Hi Alberto,

"to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me"! This is the essence of the dynamic reflexivity that my bisimulation algebra is meant to capture and it is what Pratt is trying to capture with his residuation process. The trick is to figure out how it is that names are generated such that "Alberto" is somehow different from "Stephen" and "Bruno" and "Craig" and ...

    This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same
    life of ourselves.

        No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular
    in the sense of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is
    exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I
    cannot know what it is like to be you.

That´s why this uniqueness is not  essential

In the ultimate sense all name differences vanish. Yes, but that is the ideal and not the real case. Our explanation have to be able to "back away slowly" from the perfect case without falling apart.

    But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed
    to other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self.
    We  could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently
    created clones. Although this probably will never happen.

        Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might
    occur. There is something important to this!

This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further....

It is the cloning machine that is problematic. Unless one has avaialble "space to put the copies" - real physical space in terms of vacuum ground states or virtual memory for the computations - cloning is impossible. This makes 1p indeterminacy contingent on the possibility of instantiation and we can capture the idea of "possibility of instantiation" in theoretical terms, I claim, by considering how naming occurs. Please review the thread "God has no name" that Bruno and I engaged in.




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