On 8/29/2012 10:39 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
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.
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
