On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > You keep confusing the 3-views on the 1-views and the 1-views about
> You should get a rubber stamp of that phrase made, it's your standard
> reply to all criticisms, and as I've said before if something is identical
> from the 3-view it is certainly identical from the 1-view (although the
> reverse is not always true); it you don't understand this point it is you
> that is confused, very confused indeed.
You are correct, computationalism implies two objectively identical brains
will support subjectively identical consciousness. This is not what Bruno
means when he says you confuse the 1st and 3rd person views, however. The
experiment requires that you place yourself in the place of someone about
to be duplicated and ask yourself what you expect to experience after that
duplication. You continue to refuse to put yourself in this place and
instead inspect it as a external observer of the experiment rather than an
Are you familiar with the quantum suicide thought experiment? (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality ) Do you
understand how the predicted outcome of the experiment differs depending on
whether you are the experimenter or you are the experimenter's assistant?
This is the confusion Bruno alludes to. It is like seeing only the
assistant's third person view when you are asked to make a prediction from
the experimenter's first person view when carrying out the experiment.
Like it or not, in science the observer can never be fully separated from
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at