On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>>>> Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital
transformation of consciousness is perfectly consistent with the
matter in the desk I'm pounding my hand on right now as simply being
a subroutine in the johnkclak program, and the same is true of the
matter in my hand.
>>> Only by a confusion 1p and 3p,
>> OK now were getting to the heart of the matter (no pun
indented). Explain exactly why my statement above is confused and
or wrong and you will have won this year old debate.
> UDA is the explanation of this.
You're going to have to more than just type 3 letters to convince me!
UDA points on a specific argument that you are supposed to have read.
I have developed in posts on this list regularly. I have given
reference to free accessible detailed account, like:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
> You agreed also that consciousness is not localized
Yes I agree, in fact it was me not you who first mentioned it.
It is part of the UDA. Published in 1991, made public in the eighties.
> but you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent conscious
being but can't emulate a desk?
I am not saying that. I am saying that the desk apparent localization
has to be explained in taking into account the non-localization of
your consciousness.
If my consciousness is caused by a computer processing information
then the world that consciousness interacts with is also cause by
information. And information like consciousness has no unique
position.
That's part of my point.
> If your consciousness is not localized, and perhaps supported by
many other computations (in a physical universe or in arithmetic)
you need to explain why the object of your desk appear to be made of
local matter
Because the desk subprogram was written to appear that way to the
John Clark subprogram;
By God? Why who? and why?
the desk could appear however the master programer (or evolution)
wished it to appear,
Evolution? How evolution, here and now, could localize your
consciousness/desk relation?
he could even ignore the laws of physics if he wished and use
Aristotelian physics, or road runner cartoon physics.
That is part of the problem.
>> it's been over a year and to be honest I don't even remember what
the first 2 steps were, they may have been just as silly as step 3.
> This shows the complete non seriousness of your attitude.
I promise to give your ideas all the seriousness they deserve.
How could you know that in advance? You betray you have prejudices.
> it means that you have judged from rumors and not personal study.
You and I have never met so the only thing I have to judge you by is
by studying the ASCII sequence you have produced.
So focus on the points and stop the insulting tone.
And I have never heard any rumors about you but now you've got me
curious, what are they?
That the work is "philosophy", to name one which is common, and easy
to believe due to the nature of the subject. It might be philosophy in
some large sense, but it is done with the scientific method, and
illustrates that we can tackle problems, usually approached in
philosophy or theology, in a purely hypothetico-deductive way. Then
this has been peer-reviewed by scientists, without any trouble, but I
have been reported that literary philosophers (who have never accepted
any public or private meetings) are hurted in their personal
conviction. And some scientists refer to them as if they have
authorities (other than academical). Some university use "philosophy"
as a last tool to justify authoritative arguments, and your rhetoric
reminds me of them.
> You are an obscurantist religious bigot
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> and parrot
Stop using the exact same ridiculous insult and I'll stop using the
exact same rubber stamp reply.
Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA,
which is the same thesis, but no more using thought experiences. AUDA
was for the mathematicians who told me that they are not interested in
cognitive science or philosophy of mind, where such thought experience
is common.
Stop using rhetorical tricks to escape the fact that your point have
been debunked. The FPI is not based on any notion of personal
identity, and you escape the conclusion in keeping a 3 view at a place
we ask you a question about the 1-views.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
