On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Liz
>> In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition
of "you" has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split.
Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your
criterion for identity over time?
Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on
from your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are
allowed by
OK.
- I assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain.
There is no problem of identity. With comp, we can considered both the
W-person and the M-person genuine H-person, and that is why the 1p-
identity can be defined by the content of the personal memory, written
in the diary that the experiencer takes with him/her/it.
But in this case, the "transition" does not follow logic, as the fact
that "I am in W", or that "I am in M" is contingent, from the 1p view.
They know that they could have been the other one. Bt W and M are
consistent with H. Of course "W & M" is inconsistent, as comp makes it
impossible (without further transformations) to make H experiencing
simultaneously W and M in the 1p view. Again, in the 3-1 view, from an
outsider, which attribute politely consciousness and 1p subjective
life to the both copies, H does experience W and M simultanepously,
yet not from his personal views. He will never open the door of the
reconstitution telebox and write "I see W and M".
In fact, those saying that H = M and H = W, (despite M ≠ W), should
agree that we experience all the experience of all conscious creature
simultaneously, wchi might make sense in "God"'s eye, but not in our
particular eyes. But this identity point is of no use in the reasoning
presented here.
With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I actually don't feel I
need a criterion myself. What I have instead is the yes-doctor
assumption. In other words, whatever criterion is adopted it must
satisfy the condition that whenever I am copied, destroyed and
reconstructed somewhere else, the reconstruction IS me. Otherwise,
unless suicidal, I would never say yes to the doctor.
This is why I used to argue Bruno was hoist by his own petard
because its his yes-doctor assumption that forces me to 'accommodate
the fact that Ive split'.
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept "Yes Doctor"
the rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true,
? You might elaborate on this. What is the "rest", and why do you
think it does not follow?
Of course I define comp by "yes doctor" + Church's thesis.
Bruno
but that's the big leap.
--
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.
