On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 22 Sep 2019, at 11:43, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get >> past Step 3.* > > > If Jason Resch reads Carroll's book as John Clark has done then Jason > Resch will find that Carroll goes into considerable detail explaining > what the personal pronoun "you" could mean when there are multiple copies > of "you". And that is something John Clark has done many times on this > list, and that is something Bruno has never done and is what makes step 3 > not just wrong but silly. > > > On the contrary, each time I have used the nuances (1p, 3p, 1-plural-p) > to explain step 3, all your critics have suppress the nuances, usually > using mockery and semantic play, without any argument understoodd by any on > this list. > > Then, if you think that Carroll’s got it right, you do accept step 3, (as > Carroll accept it, according to Jason) and it is even more weird why you > have not yet move to step 4. > > Of course, we know that you will have a problem with step 7, as you > believe that a computation is ream only off implemented in an assumed > physical reality, but this contradict a century of computer science. > > > Perhaps it is a manifestation of "buyer's remorse" (he spent $80,000 when he is already saved by arithmetic). While he might have a problem with step 7, it appears John Clark does support arithmetical realism: John Clark <[email protected]> 12/26/12 to everything-list On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > Why do the natural numbers exist? A better question is do the natural numbers need a reason to exist? I don't know the answer to that but my hunch is no. However he uses the static nature of arithmetical truth to presume that it cannot represent "real computations". But he has not indicated why fundamental change (which I take to mean successive creation and destruction of states) should be necessary to computation, while the indexical eternal existence of each successive computational state won't do. John's theory that fundamental change is required leads to an infinity of philosophical zombies existing within the arithmetical computations, but I think John has also argued against philosophical zombies. I would like him to answer the following questions: 1. Can the time evolution of John Clark's brain be described by the solutions to a particular Diophantine equation? (e.g. an equation with variables t and s, where t = number of Plank times since start of emulation, and s = the wave function describing all the particles in your skull) 2. Are those brain states found in the collection of solutions to that equation reflective of a philosophical zombie? (e.g. could we build a John Clark robot that behaved exactly as John Clark would by searching for solutions to this equation, which would not be conscious) Jason -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgE67TzrC%2Bx98LG7Fk9%2BZQFnDapXzs%2BDU3v1GP2rbQCcg%40mail.gmail.com.
