On 10/27/2012 1:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:54 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/27/2012 11:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
>> your eyes are sending signals to your brain of the White House and
the Kremlin, and there is nothing more profound about it.
> But the eyes of the copy get also the signals from Moscow.
Yes, so the guy in Moscow feels like the guy in Moscow because he's the guy
Moscow. Big deal.
> So your explanation does not help to predict what will happen if the
experience is reitired.
True, it can't predict what will happen because what will happen is a
the external environment and how it stimulates the eyes and it has nothing
with the original or either copy. Your entire philosophy is built on top of
question "Why is the guy in Washington the guy in Washington?" and the
course is "because he's the guy in Washington". With such a foundation its
wonder it can't do much.
> The correct comp explanation, deep or not, explains why we cannot
Then I no longer know what "comp" means because the real reason we can't do
is the same reason we can't do better at predicting next weeks weather, its
Predicting is hard, especially the future.
I am not sure if you are being consistent here. Earlier you said you said you
identify yourself with a stream of thoughts (not a single thought). If you are
identified with a stream of thoughts then you can't simply say one brain is in Moscow
and one is in Washington and that is as deep as it goes, for you must consider the
first person continuum of experience and what they can predict about where their
consciousness will take them.
You agreed if you were instantly halted, taken apart and rebuilt again (even with
different atoms) from your own perspective nothing would have skipped a beat, your
stream of consciousness continues right where it left off. But when you are taken
apart and two copies are created at two locations your stream diverges among two
paths, which gives rise to true unpredictability in the first person perspective.
Physics makes it impossible that you could be instantly halted and restarted at a
We could anestatize him then destroy him.
But anesthesia can't act instantaneously across the brain (speed of light and all that)
and anesthesia doesn't stop all brain activity (or even very much of it) anyway.
Or we could simulate his neurons on a computer and halt that program.
You'd have to determine the state of all his neurons (assuming that's the right level)
simultaneously - but in a spatially extended object "simultaneous" is ill-defined. And
then you'd have to restart them simultaneously.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at