On 30 Jun 2015, at 17:59, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Terren Suydam <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Whether post-duplication-machine or post-many-worlds-
duplication, "I" refers to the person having a subjective experience.
OK.
> Post duplication, we both agree that the persons diverge in
either scenario. So there are two first-person experiences, but we
can refer to *THE* first-person experience of either person:
But you can't refer to *THE* future first-person
experience of the Helsinki Man because that is plural not singular
if a duplicating chamber is involved. And that's why the question
"what one city will he see?" is ridiculous; you in effect said the
same thing yourself in your last post when you admitted that
personal pronouns must be used and not their referent because they
have no referent. In other words in Bruno's thought experiment all
the many personal pronouns in it are utterly ridiculous and have no
more meaning than a burp.
> The reasons you are giving why they are not equivalent only
bear on the third-person perspective:
Two first person perspectives are NOT equivalent to one third
party perspective. And in Bruno's thought experiment there is simply
no alternative, like it or not after the duplication there are two
first person perspectives around (that's what duplication means) so
they must be dealt with.
Which is exactly what we do by interviewing them all, and the
prediction "W v M" wins. The prediction "W and M" lost (when the
relevant JCs get the point of what was asked about: the result of the
experience pushing on a button and opening the box and deciding which
city is behind).
In the iterated case the prediction "random" wins. It is easy to
prove, when we respect that protocol and assume computationalism.
You know that there are two first person perspectives after the
duplication, and you know that from their perspective, they got a
definite result W, for one, and M for the other. They write in the
diary "I see M", resp. W. The "and" was wrong for the personal
experience I could live.
You are aware of that two first person perspective, good, but you
still don't take them into account.
Just a little more effort, and you get it. You are almost there.
The randomness is easier to see, and harder to refute, in the iterated
case. The n-WM-duplication leads to 2^n first person perspectives and
the population is a perfect P=1/2 Bernouilli sample from purely
mathematical definitions.
Bruno
.> consciousness supervenes on physical brains (assuming
computationalism)
Yes, and considering the gargantuan amount of evidence in its
favor only a fool would not assume computationalism.
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.
