Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012/3/17 John Clark > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >So your point is that you would feel at both place at once ??? If >> that's not an extraordinary claim... don't know what is. >> > > One macroscopic object being at 2 places at the same time would indeed be > ext

First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)

John, Let me try again, with a slightly different thought experiment. In this case I invite Arthur to make some experience. I think it is indifferent if Arthur knows or not the protocol (except that it would violate the comp ethics to not tell him the protocol, gievn that he will be, as y

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 16 March 2012 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote: >    Would it be not wrong to think of ordinary motion of an object through > space as a form of repetitive "cut and paste" operation? You mean on the basis of the same assumptions as the UDA, I assume? Well, insofar as movement through space encomp

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:20 AM, meekerdb wrote: > There are many possible enormous changes that could happen without you > being aware of them. > Show me. Show me a example of a change being made between 2 conscious beings that resulted in a enormous difference between them, and yet the individ

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > so according to you, we should throw pronouns in the toilet > Most of the time pronouns work just fine, but if you're discussing personal identity and duplication chambers you've got to be very stingy with their use, otherwise you end up

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012/3/17 John Clark > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > so according to you, we should throw pronouns in the toilet >> > > Most of the time pronouns work just fine > No they are fine or not... If MWI is true "What will *I* do in one second ?" is fine or it is not. No

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

2012/3/17 John Clark > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > so according to you, we should throw pronouns in the toilet >> > > Most of the time pronouns work just fine, but if you're discussing > personal identity and duplication chambers you've got to be very stingy > wi

Re: First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The experience consists in being duplicated each day, for ten days in a > row. > Oh dear, Is this really necessary? > He is duplicated in two similar rooms, except for a big "1" painted in > the wall of one of these rooms, and a big "0" pa

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/17/2012 8:18 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 16 March 2012 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote: Would it be not wrong to think of ordinary motion of an object through space as a form of repetitive "cut and paste" operation? You mean on the basis of the same assumptions as the UDA, I assume? Hi

Re: First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)

2012/3/17 John Clark > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > The experience consists in being duplicated each day, for ten days in a >> row. >> > > Oh dear, Is this really necessary? > > > He is duplicated in two similar rooms, except for a big "1" painted in >> the wall of

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 17 March 2012 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote: >    But why make copies of some "original" object when the program can just > generate many by paralleling running one subroutine or simultaneously > running multiple programs ala UD? But surely (still arguing from comp assumptions, that is) we mus

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 17 Mar 2012, at 05:05, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: >>If he knew he was duplicated both would mention it, if he didn't neither would. >The point is that he cannot perceive it. he can not known it by any personal observation, So you're saying that neither the original nor

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/17/2012 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:20 AM, meekerdb > wrote: > There are many possible enormous changes that could happen without you being aware of them. Show me. You are placed in a closed room and anesthesized. While you

Re: First Person Indeterminacy (new attempt) (was Theology or not theology)

Oh my god, I'm going to scream. Do you think it's possible John and Craig are actually *one and the same person*, some kind of evil mastermind über-troll intent on driving us all over the brink of sanity? What's clear now is that John has painted himself into a corner from which he can never retrea

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > You are placed in a closed room and anesthesized. While you are > unconscious you are moved to an identical room in Moscow. You wake up. > There has been an enormous change in your position but you are not aware of > it. > And in your examp

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/17/2012 9:45 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > You are placed in a closed room and anesthesized. While you are unconscious you are moved to an identical room in Moscow. You wake up. There has been an enormous