On 11 Feb 2014, at 17:35, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
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!
> You agreed also that consciousness is not localized
Yes I agree, in fact it was me not you who first mentioned it.
> 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? 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.
> 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; the desk could appear however the master
programer (or evolution) wished it to appear, he could even ignore
the laws of physics if he wished and use Aristotelian physics, or
road runner cartoon physics.
>> 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.
> 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. And I have never
heard any rumors about you but now you've got me curious, what are
they?
> 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.
John K Clark
probably the kiss of death since I'm a known lunatic , but I vouch
for John here but would probably say comp itself as stated in Chuch/
say-yes-to-doctor thesis, already drops the consciousness issue
betweee n the cracks. Nothing wrong with the UDA after that, but
consciousness wasn't being 'carried' to begin with.
I do not understand. The definition of comp is in term of
consciousness preservation for some brain transformation.
May be you can elaborate. John Clark agrees on this making your
remark still more bizarre.
Bruno
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
