On 05 Aug 2016, at 22:02, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Keep well in mind that I am not arguing for or against
computationalism. I assume it, and study the consequences.
No, you're assuming at the very start that Computationalism is
false and then going on from there.
That contradicts directly what I did.
Computationalism means that every subjective experience about you
can be duplicated by computations made with a physical system.
This is fuzzy, but OK. I see what you intend to mean, and I am OK.
Not almost everything, EVERYTHING. But then you say:
"Nothing can duplicate a first person view from its first person
point of view, with or without computationalism."
Computationalism says intelligent behavior
But behavior is 3p.
can be duplicated by computations performed by a physical system,
and Darwin's Theory demands that consciousness is a byproduct of
intelligence, so your statement contradicts both the meaning of
Computationalism and Evolution.
You forget that we distinguish 3p and 1p.
I think you have not yet understood what is a "first person", and
still less what is the first person as seen by the first person view.
If it was possible to duplicate a first person view in a way such that
the first person view would notice the duplication, then the guy in M
would be able to know, in M, if the doppelganger in W (and vice versa)
has been reconstituted, but again that suppose some telepathy.
The quantum corresponding statement is Everett's famous: the observer
does not feel the split.
Do you really think that you can distinguish, from an 1p view, the
step 3 WM duplication experience with the experience where you are
told that you will undergo the step 3 protocol, except that now we lie
and we reconstitute you only in M? You need something like that to
affirm that the first person experience can be duplicated *from its
own point of view".
BTW, you have given contradictory answer to the question 1 in the same
week. You are currently inconsistent, so please do the correction
needed, if you intend to continue to claim that there is no first
person indeterminacy. If not, you will bring the exact same invalid
argument again and again. So let us settle this completely, or let us
move to step 4.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
