On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>

> LizR wrote:
>> On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
>>     LizR wrote:
>>         On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com> <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>             Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that
>>         Bruno
>>             had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of
>>         uncertainty         That's hardly what Bruno is claiming. Step 3
>> is only a small
>>         step in a logical argument. It shows that if our normal everyday
>>         consciousness is the result of computation, then it can be
>>         duplicated (in principle - if you have a problem with matter
>>         duplicators, consider an AI programme) and that this leads to
>>         what looks like uncertainty from one person's perspective.
>>     You only get that impression because in Bruno's treatment of the
>>     case -- the two copies are immediately separated by a large distance
>>     and don't further interact. You might come to a different conclusion
>>     if you let the copies sit down together and have a chat.
>> That doesn't make any difference to the argument. "Will I be the copy
>> sitting in the chair on the left?" is less dramatic than "Will I be
>> transported to Moscow or Washington?" and hence, I suspect, might not make
>> the point so clearly. But otherwise the argument goes through either way.
> No, because as I argued elsewhere, the two 'copies' would not agree that
> they were the same person.
>      Separating them geographically was meant to mimic the different
>>     worlds idea from MWI. But I think that is a bit of a cheat.
>> I don't know where Bruno says he's mimicking the MWI (at this stage) ?
>> This is a classical result, assuming classical computation (which according
>> to Max Tegmark is a reasonable assumption for brains).
> In the protracted arguments with John Clark, the point was repeated made
> that he accepted FPI for MWI, so why not for Step 3.

Discussion or fruitful argument assume mutual respect. The respect/civility
in the exchange is one-sided however, and has remained so for years. It's
not an argument; closer to an experiment of John to see how often he can
get away with airing personal issues clothed in sincerity of intellectual

This occupies too much bandwidth and is a turn off from where I'm sitting.
I'd much rather see the comp related discussions go to address say Telmo's
request for clarification in Bruno's use of phi_i, or G/G* distinctions, or
pedagogical demonstrations on "the* work* arithmetic existentially
done*", clarification on Russell's use of "robust", physicalist theories
that don't eliminate consciousness etc.

I enjoy when the list gets funky in such direction, and even though I am
invested in environmental sector professionally, perhaps some of the
climate change stuff is a bit out of topic. This as pure opinion. Nobody
gets two cents from me as I'd be poor if consistent ;-) PGC

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/d/optout.

Reply via email to