> On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:09, smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19-09-2018 22:18, John Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:17 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> The state of a Turing machine is matched to a number and always >>>> has and always will be matched that very same number forever. >>>> Nothing changes. >>>> _You can say the same for your state here and now. But >>> consciousness is not supported by the state, but by the sequence of >>> states, or more exactly, the logical relation brought by a universal >>> machine relating those states._ >> The logical relationships between those states never changes, not in >> the time dimension or in any other dimension, and consciousness, just >> like computation, demands change; physics can provide that, >> mathematics can't. >>> _>Your critics invalidate any block-view of reality._ >> You can't have a block-view of reality or of anything else without a >> block, and time is one of the dimensions of that block, and time is >> the one and only reason the geometry of that block is Non-Euclidean. >>>> _Are you, like Prigogine, assuming a fundamental time?_ >> Physicists have tried for decades to develop a Theory Of Everything >> without making use of time in any way but have not been very >> successful. Lee Smolin in his book "Time Reborn" says the obsession so >> many physicists have had on getting rid of time is the reason little >> progress has been made at finding a quantum theory of gravity. Brains >> are certainly not fundamental but are nevertheless of vital importance >> to cognition, so if we're just talking about consciousness it doesn't >> make any difference if time is ultimately fundamental or not because >> nothing is more apparent and important to a consciousness than time. >> And don't tell me time is just a illusion because that explains >> nothing, a illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon >> and subjectivity is what we're talking about. >>>> ___Time is an internal indexical,_ >> The index never changes, but time does and so does consciousness. >>>>>> Definitions are a bore . SHOW ME! >>> _>That is just ridiculous._ >> I see. So if I were to define a dragon as a huge fire breathing lizard >> that can fly it would be ridiculous of you to dispute my claim that by >> defining them I have proven dragons exist. >>> _> Without agreeing on what is a computation,_ >> We don't learn by reading definitions, we learn from EXAMPLES. A >> definition is made of words and all of those words have there own >> definitions also made of words and all of those words have there own >> definitions also made of words and [...] >> You seem to be very big on fundamental stuff but if we're talking >> about meaning definitions are most certainly NOT fundamental, but >> examples are. Where do you suppose lexicographers got the information >> to write the definitions in their dictionary? >> So forget definitions, just compute 2+2 without using physics and I >> will concede defeat and nominate you for a Nobel Prize. >>>>>> The trouble with arithmetic is it doesn't change. >>> _>Nor do a block universe;_ >> And that is exactly why consciousness can not directly perceive the >> block universe and in fact until a century ago nobody was conscious of >> the idea, and even today nobody knows if it's a correct view of >> reality. At best it's just an approximation, and it can't even >> approximate what's going on at the center of a Black Hole or at the >> instant of the Big Bang. >>>> _Just ask the copies, they know well what they are living._ >> And I predicted that would happen long before the experiment started. >>>> _Wat I request is that you tell me what the H-guy can expect to >>> live_ >> And what I request of you is far far easier than a prediction, all I >> want you to do is go somewhere look around and tell me what you see. >> Just answer the following question: "After the experiment is completed >> and the 1 H-guy became 2 H-guys what 1 and only 1 city did the H-guy >> end up in?". If you can't answer that then it was not a experiment and >> it was not even a question, it was just a series of words with a >> question mark at the end. >>>> _You have already said that the H-guy survives___ [...] >> I can make all sorts of statements about the H-guy because I know >> exactly what I mean by "the H-guy", but you have no idea what you mean >> by "the H-guy". >>>>>> I predicted the guy who saw Moscow would become the Moscow guy >>>> and the guy who saw Washington would become the Washington guy, >>>> ___Sure, but that is tautological. _ >> Exactly! Seeing Moscow is the one and only reason the Helsinki man >> became the Moscow man. So why did I see Moscow? Because I'm the Moscow >> man. Why am I the Moscow man? Because I saw Moscow. That may not be >> deep but like all tautologies it's true, and I remind you it's your >> thought "experiment" not mine. >>>> The prediction is on which guy you can expect to be, >> Which guy who can expect to be? Bruno is unable to say what the ASCII >> sequence y-o-u means in the above sentence and that's why Bruno is so >> fond of personal pronouns, when people duplicating machines are >> involved they help cover up the gaping holes in logic. >>>> ___from the 1p, after pushing the button, with will admit that >>> the symmetry is broken, and this in a way they were unable to >>> predict with certainty in Helsinki._ >> Unable to predict exactly what in Helsinki? >>>>>> Regardless of if X stands for a banana or one of the 7.5 billion >>>> "the first persons" on the Earth at the current time, if X becomes >>>> 2 X it's brain dead dumb to ask what one and only one thing will >>>> happen to X. >>>> _That is refuted by both copies,_ >> Wonderfull! So both copies agree on the name of the one and only one >> city the Helsinki Man ended up in! So which ONE did it turn out to be, >> Washington OR Moscow? >>>>>> you have demanded over and over for years the name of one and >>>> only one city. >>> _>Yes. _ >> But even after the "exparament" is over you STILL don't know that one >> and only one city name so you have no way of knowing if my prediction >> was correct or not. And if you know before you start you will learn >> nothing from an experiment what's the point of performing the >> experiment? >>>>>> The prediction can never be correct, >>> _>Good. _ >> The prediction can't be incorrect either. and only one thing has that >> property, gibberish. A burp is neither true or untrue because it's not >> a statement, it's just a burp. >>>>>> and doing the "experiment" and then just looking won't help >>>> figure out what the correct answer turned out to be because you >>>> have no idea what the question was or what you're trying to >>>> predict. >>> _>False._ >> If it's false then just look and tell me if the answer turned out to >> be Washington or Moscow. What are you waiting for, let's hear it! >>>>>> And I don't even understand why you're so obsessed with >>>> prediction when that has nothing to do with our sense of self, we >>>> get that by looking into the past and a good thing too because >>>> nobody can look into the future. >>>> _This you will probably need step 4, 5, … to grasp._ >> And I will probably never read step 4 because you will probably never >> repair the ridiculous blunder you made in step 3. >>> _>When you say that the H-man will see both cities, do you mean that >>> he will see both cities at once._ >> I can't answer your question until I know what the referent to the >> personal pronoun "he" in the above is. I'm pretty sure it doesn't >> refer to anybody who remembers being the Helsinki Man but other than >> that I have no idea what one and only one thing you mean by "he", if >> this were everyday life I'd know but this is very far from everyday >> life because "he" duplicating machines are involved. >>>>>> Which one of the two "1-views themselves" do you want to know >>>> about? If you say "both" you can't still demand one and only one >>>> answer unless logic means nothing to you. Don't you think the fact >>>> that you can't answer the question even AFTER the “experiment" >>>> _Both can. The point is that they give different and of course >>> incompatible answer. _ >> So there are 2 answers to the the question that you demand one and >> only one answer to, and the 2 answers are incomparable. There is only >> one sort of question that has that property, a gibberish question. >> John K Clark > > Or just accept that personal identity is simply contained in all the other > information in the brain that we don't make explicit in these sorts of > discussions. If I have pain in my knee, then the fact that it's me that is > feeling that is also part of what is experienced. Also pain in a knee implies > that there is knee that hurts, so that fact alone implies a certain body > design which already contains some information about my identity (e.g. that > I'm not a spider). > > If one just discusses the duplication thought experiments by replacing "you" > by some (unspecified) bitstring, making it clear that the bitstring is > updated whenever the total information content of the brain changes, there > shouldn't be any problems. Any notion of me being the same person as > yesterday appeals to the possibility of splitting the bitstring as it exists > right now into a part that refers to what it was yesterday and the difference > between what is is today and yesterday, and that difference is then what "I" > experienced during the day. But this only works approximately, as information > in the brain can get deleted when new information is added. So, the notion of > an "I" that persist throughout time is only approximately valid, it should be > replaced by an instantaneous notion of personal identity, which is simply the > exact computational state of my brain right now.
OK, with all of this, except perhaps on the conclusion, because the “exact (relevant) computational state makes sense only relatively to some universal system, and in "real life”, there are a lot of them. It is not enough to save a computational state on a disk, you need (to “survive” and keep your approximate identity) some universal reality to execute the program, or, you abandon your self to the arithmetical realm immediately, where we go back to that unknown which is strangely familiar (according to some plants). In fact I identify a computation with a couple of a (usually) universal machine and a number, and some iterator, or just a sigma_1 sentence. A computational state per se has not enough structure. Now; the modal mode of self-reference imposed the structure on the set of all computations (sigma_1 sentence), leading to the true, believable, knowable, observable, and sensible view of truth from inside. In the duplication experience, for the prediction, we use the criteria of surviving a digital brain transplant, with the hope we survive this at least as well as some other experience/operation, like appendicitis or heart transplants. Bruno > > Saibal > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
