Dear List,
I cannot keep to myself remarks on TWO kinds of unreasonabilities surfaced
and are still being discussed to saturation (euphemism).
#1: the use of the conditional form. This, as usually applied, pertains to a
select aspect of the model without (of course) taking the rest of the
world
Le 18-juin-05, 13:09, Eric Cavalcanti a crit :
But with comp, then yes, I agree that the memory of the newly created
copies is just as real as any other memory.
ok
Or maybe not quite. Because
we cannot find any evidence that we were created 10 minutes ago. That
hypothesis is
Le 17-juin-05, 19:44, Jonathan Colvin a crit :
Bruno wrote:
Note that the question why am I me and not my brother is
strictly equivalent with why am I the one in Washington and
not the one in Moscow after a WM duplication. It is strictly
unanswerable. Even a God could not give an adequate
Hal Finney writes:
God creates someone with memories of a past life, lets him live for a
day, then instantly and painlessly kills him.
What would you say that he experiences? Would he notice his birth and
death? I would generally apply the same answers to the 10^100 people
who undergo your
At 10:55 AM 6/18/2005, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
(snip)
The above mechanism would still work even if, as in my thought experiment,
there were 10^100 exact copies running in lockstep and all but one died.
Each one of the 10^100-1 copies would experience continuity of
consciousness through
All,
Though we're not discussing entanglement per se, some of these examples
surely meet the criteria. So, my thought question for the day: is the
method of copying important?
Example #1: we start with a single marble, A. Then, we magically
create a copy, marble B--perfectly like
Russell Standish wrote:
On What would it be like to have been born someone else, how
does this differ from What is it like to be a bat?
Presumably Jonathon Colvin would argue that this latter
question is meaningless, unless immaterial souls existed.
I still find it hard to understand this
I'm no physicist, but doesn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle forbid
making exact quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then
all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy.
Norman Samish
~
- Original Message -
From: rmiller [EMAIL
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
Hal Finney writes:
God creates someone with memories of a past life, lets him live for a
day, then instantly and painlessly kills him.
What would you say that he experiences? Would he notice his birth and
death? I would generally apply the same answers to the
You ca still create two identical systems starting from another system. E.g.
in stimulated emission two photons are created in the same state. Another
example is a Bose Einstein condensate, in which all the atoms are in the
same state.
Note that you can still teleport an unknown quantum state
I'm no physicist, but doesn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle forbid
making exact quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then
all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy.
Norman Samish
You can't *specifically* copy a quantum state, but you can create
systems in *every
Hal,
Isn't it possible that decision processes of the brain, hence
consciousness, DOES depend critically on quantum states?
My understanding of the workings of the brain is that my action, whether
thought or deed, is determined by whether or not certain neurons fire. This
depends on
Norman Samish writes:
Isn't it possible that decision processes of the brain, hence
consciousness, DOES depend critically on quantum states?
Yes, it's possible. There is a school of thought which advances this
position. Penrose, Hamerhoff are a couple of the names, off the top
of my
Bruno wrote:
Note that the question why am I me and not my brother is strictly
equivalent with why am I the one in Washington and not the one in
Moscow after a WM duplication. It is strictly unanswerable. Even a
God could not give an adequate explanation (assuming c.).
(JC) Ok, does
Le Dimanche 19 Juin 2005 02:39, Jonathan Colvin a crit:
the dualism comes from reifying the 3rd
person independent universe, and if we accept only the 1st person as
real, there is no dualism. It is quite a metaphysical leap, though, to
discard the 3rd person universe. I'd like to know how to
-Original Message-
From: Norman Samish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 11:20 PM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: copy method important?
Hal,
Isn't it possible that decision processes of the brain, hence
consciousness, DOES depend critically on
16 matches
Mail list logo
