On 1 March 2014 21:03, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote: > > On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote: >> >> 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? >> > > I mean the rest as I understand it. "Yes Doctor" implies that identity > relies on a "capsule memory", and hence that H=M and H=W, and also that > H=simulated M / W, H = M+100 years, and so on. > > That is not so clear to me. >
OK. That is my take on it, which may be based on intuition or misunderstanding. But it seems to me the idea of "Yes Doctor" - that you could have your brain replaced by a digital equivalent and not know the difference - is only possible if all the other things you mention are, too. How would "Yes Doctor" work? You'd have to have your brain frozen (or something similar), scanned and destroyed, while the digital one was programmed to be a simulation of your brain (below the substitution level). And from your own perspective you would fall asleep on the operating table and wake up with a digital brain (and maybe a robot body). That's only possible (it seems to me) if your continuation of consciousness from day to day is discontinuous in a similar manner. Otherwise in "Yes Doctor" you would die, and a replica would be created. Similarly after classical teleportation, where you are destroyed and recreated, you only come out at the other end as the same person if that's what consciousness - if it's "Heralicitean", so to speak. But if that is the case, then you can be teleported, cloned, and so on - not to mention kidnapped (or 50% kidnapped) by someone able to scan your brain at some point without destroying it and recreating you in their own private digital world. That's why it seems if you accept "Yes Doctor", everything else (the other steps) have to follow, because you have already accepted what we might as well call the Heraclitean nature of consciousness. > >> Of course I define comp by "yes doctor" + Church's thesis. >> > > That is why I realise it isn't quite true that YD implies everything, > because you need CT and AR. > > But you just said that "1+1=2" is a fact, which is stronger than AR. AR > just says that 1+1=2, and nothing more. And CT is not really needed in the > math: just add Turing before machine or universal number. But CT makes > things smooth and prevent uninteresting critics like "and what if we are > not Turing emulable, but still "machines" in some unknonw sense. > That was in another thread! I was making a suggestion about "where the maths comes from". I don't necessarily assume that when talking about comp. Also, I suspect that you have a stronger meaning of "fact" in mind. What is the difference betwen asserting that 1+1=2 (like AR) and saying that 1+1=2 is a fact, like I did? (I suspect the difference is something like Bp vs p except I beleive B means believing ...) > > But if you accept the Doctor's offer then you are committing to a "capsule > theory of identity" which implies most of what you have said about > duplication experiments with delays, VR, and so on. > > OK. I would say "relative (to universal numbers) capsule theory of > identity". > I'm not sure I understand, what would be the alternative capsule theory (i.e. one that isn't relative to universal numbers?) -- 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.
