On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 Pierz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas who remember > having been you (if amoebas had memories). > Yes, and it would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if **you** will swim to the left or to the right after the division, almost as silly as asking which of the 2 amoebas was *THE* one true original amoeba that had "*THE* 1p you". > > > you say that the laws of physics only allow you to see one universe. > Yes, or to say the same thing with different words, MWI says that the laws of physics treats conscious observers in EXACTLY the same way as it treats non-conscious stuff. Or to use still different language, MWI has nothing specific to say about consciousness. > > > In Bruno's formulation it's not the laws of physics but the definition of > the observer as comprised in the digital state of some machine, > But definitions are exactly the problem. In Bruno's thought experiment what is the definition of "you"? One some days Bruno says it's the man who remembers being a man in Helsinki and that's fine, but on other days Bruno adds the mysterious proviso "in THE 1p" and on still other days the definition of "you" must include "in the 3p. So what the hell is the definition of "you"? > >> >> Admittedly Bruno does say "THE 1p you" but unfortunately always neglects >> to mention which 1p you. Well OK Bruno does say >> THE 1p you >> who wrote all that stuff in the diary, but that does no good because >> after the duplication Bruno is unable to point to the one guy who wrote all >> that stuff in the diary. >> > > > > Don't be daft. There are two people writing in diaries after the > duplication, and Bruno knows it. You've misunderstood the claim. > If John doesn't understand Bruno but Pierz says he does then Pierz should be able to tell John exactly what "*THE* 1p you" means in a world with people duplicating machines. I'm all ears! >> >> But it is not >> irrelevant to the question >> of pronouns and Bruno's arguments are always filled wall to wall with >> pronouns. When discussing the multiverse the very laws of physics ensure >> that pronouns cause no ambiguity, but that is certainly not the case with >> people duplicating machines. >> Stage magicians use pretty >> assistants >> to distract >> the audience >> >> from >> their sleight of hand, Bruno uses pronouns. >> >> Bruno says that c >> omputationalism >> can't predict what *YOU* will see next so there must be some aspect of >> consciousness that the >> computational theory of mind >> can not explain, >> > > > > Say what? Say WHAT? Bruno's argument is based purely on a computational > theory of mind! > Bruno argument is that if the computational theory of mind is correct (and only a fool would say it is not) then it should be able to determine the future state of a conscious observer, but Bruno says it cannot and indeterminacy remains so computationalism can't be the entire story. However Bruno is incorrect, computationalism precisely determines that t he Moscow man will be the man who sees photons from Moscow because a photons from Moscow is the very thing that turns the Helsinki man into the Moscow man , and a corresponding thing happens to the Washington man. C omputationalism tells you that you will be duplicated and one you will see Moscow and one you will see Washington. Will the you who sees Moscow and not Washington be surprised? Will the you who sees Washington and not Moscow be surprised? No, not if you is rational, it's exactly what you , a believer in c omputationalism , predicted would happen. John Clark of course know what the response to this will be, "You forgot *THE* peepee! What about *THE *peepee? In the future what will **YOU**see in the peepee?". There is no answer to that because unfortunately Bruno never specifies in whose peepee, Bruno doesn't have a consistent definition of "you". > > > Bruno's argument needs no pronouns to go through. > Then why does Bruno throw around pronouns like a drunken sailor throws around money in ever post Bruno writes? And why does Bruno talk about *THE *X even when X is clearly plural? 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.
