On 22 Aug 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Who cares, I don't give a hoot in hell about "comp".
> By definition you believe in comp,
If you say so, I guess you should know as you invented the word, so
I guess the definition of "comp" is "the stuff that John Clark
believes".
more precisely the stuff needed to accept step 0, 1, 2, ...
By definition you accept computationalism, as you accept "yes doctor"
+ Church thesis.
> but neither evoloution, nor anything 3p can prove that comp is
correct,
Fine, so "comp" isn't correct,
That does not follow logically. if we are consistent machine, there
are many propositions xhich can be true, although we cannot prove
them, like self-consistency, or the existence of a reality capable of
satisfying all our beliefs, etc.
and since "comp" isn't correct can we please stop talking about the
stupid thing?
> so that philosophical zombies are logically conceivable.
Although I think its rather unlikely it is logically conceivable
that I am the only conscious being in the universe; however it is
not logically conceivable that intelligence and consciousness are
unrelated and Evolution still managed to produce one conscious
being, and yet I know for a fact that it did. Therefore
philosophical zombies are logically inconceivable.
A more rigorous version of this would should that philosophical
zombies are logically unplausible if we bet on the evoloution theory
(with comp we can go further, and argue that they don't make sense).
But here I was not supposing things like comp, or evolution, just logic.
> What you mean is that you believe that there is a flaw in UDA,
That is not my area of expertise so I'm not competent to judge if
the Universal Dance Association is good at teaching ballet or not.
<sigh>
> We know also, as we assume comp [...]
I don't assume your baby talk jargon or your silly homemade acronyms.
Could you once stop making useless distracting ad hominem non sensical
remark?
>> before I can give you that precise answer I need to know what
you mean by "the H-guy". Does it mean:
1) John Clark?
2) The fellow currently experiencing Helsinki?
> Now you regress again, and we will cycle. Just consult sane04, the
step 3 protocol is clear and has never change since the beginning.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
So rather than simply answering my question with #1 or #2 you just
say the answer, whatever the hell it is, has always been the same
and then give a link to the same long paper that is full of
imprecise vague pronouns.
What is vague? You have already asked. I define precisely the 1-you
(content of the diary you can find in your pocket, with the usual
indexical use of "your"), and the 3-you (content of the diary of an
external observer, not entring in the tele-boxes).
So I ask again, does "the H guy" refer to #1 "John Clark", or does
it refer to #2 "the fellow currently experiencing Helsinki"?
I have already answered this many times, and we did agree more than
once on this. it is John Clark, before the experience is done, and it
concerns all John Clark first person future experiences, ad re-
explained above.
> And yes, we know that you John Clark, will be in both city, after
the experience is completed. But this does not answer the question,
which is about what you expect your life will turn in.
Explain who Mr. You is
It works with anybody. Just proceed in the thought experience.
and John Clark will answer that question.
> it will not turn into "I have the superposed experience of being
in the two city at once".
Maybe, maybe not, it depends on who Mr. I is.
No, with comp, it will never be the superposed experience.
> You are on Earth, and you need, for some reason, to go urgently on
Mars. Bad luck, you can't really afford the 100% secure quantum
classical teleportation channel Earth-Mars, but you have enough
money to take a channel where it is known that the probability of
eavesdropping is 1/4.
Now there will be two questions, according to the fact that the
eavesdropping is destructive, or not.
The eavesdropping is destructive when Eve, the "pirate", intercepts
the message, and prevents it to attain Mars.
The eavesdropping is non-destructive when Eve intercepts the
message, copies it, and let it attain Mars.
In both question the probability of eavesdropping is 1/4, and it is
supposed that Eve reconstitutes you in Hell, or some bad place.
You are on Earth, just before pushing the button. How do you
evaluate your chance to find yourself in hell?
a) with a destructive eavesdropping?
Don't know about Mr. You, we've never been introduced, but there is
a 75% chance John Clark will go to Mars and a 25% chance John Clark
will go to hell; John Clark would be very reluctant to push that
button even if the odds were 100% Mars and 25% hell
Non sense. It can't be 100% Mars and 25% hell. If Hell is not 0%, you
can get in Hell, refuting the "100% Mars" prediction.
because hell doesn't sound like much fun. But that's just John
Clark, Bruno Marchal may feel differently and there is no disputing
matters of taste.
> b) with a non-destructive eavesdropping?
Then it doesn't matter if Eve intercept things or not because she
doesn't interfere and lets things proceed as originally planned, so
there is a 100% chance that John Clark will remain on Earth and a
100% chance John Clark will go to Mars; provided that Mars is a nice
place John Clark would not hesitate in pushing that button.
In this case it is teleportation, so the "original" on Earth is always
supposed to be destroyed, but I will not quibble on this.
I will just ask you how do you will explain this to the "John Clark"
reconstituted by Eve in Hell? Certainlmy, he will think that his
previous reasoning was wrong, OK?
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 [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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
