Subject: Re: the love torture
On 7/13/2013 10:04 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
John, please understand from the Christian pov, that this (Christianity) is an
attempt to sustain life beyond death, and so far this has been the only option
for them . Jesus, for them, is the ticket out
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Christianity borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism: final battle, good
over evil, judgement day, punishment of the wicked. BUT the punishment
wasn't eternal and everybody gets to heaven eventually and nobody has to
get
chase after someone
who probably won't actually hit them or cut them. That's my view. anyway.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jul 14, 2013 11:09 am
Subject: Re: the love torture
On Sat
. But for the non-beliver, I would say it
is important not to fix the blame, but fix the problem.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 13, 2013 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: the love torture
On 7/13/2013
-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jul 14, 2013 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: the love torture
Brent wrote:
But it's not the only life-after-death card. In fact Christianity borrowed
heavily from Zoroastrianism: final battle, good over evil, judgement day,
punishment of the wicked. BUT the punishment
On 7/14/2013 10:36 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yeah, good meme's never grow stale, do they? The virgin birth thing has always been
beyond my comprehension, or sympathy.
Virgin births are de rigueur for god-men. They obviously have mothers who are human, so
their divinity must come from
On 7/14/2013 2:13 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yah! But first let us get beyond dust and bones, and then we can sweat over who gets a
spanking and who gets a cookie? We ain't gonna feel the spank or the cookles if we are
mindless nothingness.
But my point is that religions invented an
. It showed God was
justified in visiting great punishment on disbelievers; punishment
so great that killing His own son exemplified His wrath. This was
part and parcel of the threat of eternal torture and slaying His
enemies. See how ruthless I can be. See how seriously I take your
impiety. I
. It showed God was justified in visiting great
punishment on disbelievers; punishment so great that killing His own son
exemplified His wrath. This was part and parcel of the threat of eternal
torture and slaying His enemies. See how ruthless I can be. See how
seriously I take your impiety
is a torture device. I suppose if
Jesus had been executed in more recent times people would be wearing little
gold electric chairs on chains around their neck.
the sacrifice of Christ free us from our own sacrifices.
So God was so mad at the entire human race (because one of its members ate
an apple when
, successfully, than the religious??
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 13, 2013 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: the love torture
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 13, 2013 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: the love torture
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Religion is about sacrifices.
I know, religion is big on sacrifices, especially Christianity, and that's
.
Jesus, for them, is the ticket out of the tragedies, and suffering, in
life.
And Jesus is also the ticket for being terrified of the afterlife. The God
of the Old testament may be the most unpleasant character in all of fiction
and He may have enjoyed forced cannibalism and torture, but at least
-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 13, 2013 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: the love torture
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Religion is about sacrifices.
I know, religion is big on sacrifices
of
the Old testament may be the most unpleasant character in all of fiction and He
may have enjoyed forced cannibalism and torture, but at least once you were
dead you were dead and He was finished playing with you; but not so in the New
Testament of Jesus the Prince of Peace. Jesus is going to use
On 7/13/2013 10:04 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
John, please understand from the Christian pov, that this (Christianity) is an attempt
to sustain life beyond death, and so far this has been the only option for them . Jesus,
for them, is the ticket out of the tragedies, and suffering, in life.
2013/7/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 11 Jul 2013, at 14:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I quote myself:
But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and
compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these
that are not in agreement.
I
on disbelievers; punishment so great that killing
His own son exemplified His wrath. This was part and parcel of the threat of eternal
torture and slaying His enemies. See how ruthless I can be. See how seriously I take
your impiety. I kill my own son in expiation.
And his followers learned
On 10 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I do not exactly agree. since religion is a natural inclination, and
atheists have no organized religion
It depends on which atheist sect you talk about. It is an hard subject
because those sect are secret. I know them as I leave them,
I quote myself:
But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and
compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and exclusion of these
that are not in agreement.
This is incomplete: the fanaticism and the exclusion is there for well
stablished game theoretical
On 11 Jul 2013, at 14:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I quote myself:
But the religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love
and compassion, but the contrary it is about fanaticism and
exclusion of these that are not in agreement.
I might believe the contrary. What you say
I am amazed these days at the antagonism atheists hold against religion.
I suppose it has to be that way, for there is a natural draw of men toward
religion.
And if their rejection weren't so oversized, they might fall victim to
religion--
that is, to learn humility, and be filled, without any
Keep your rosaries away from our ovaries.
Keep your jihad bombs away our human bodies.
Keep your politics away from our nations politics.
None of the above are the result of faith, hope, love or humility.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I am
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I am amazed these days at the antagonism atheists hold against religion.
And I am amazed that you are amazed that there should be antagonism toward
the thing that, with the exception of death itself, has caused more
I do not exactly agree. since religion is a natural inclination, and
atheists have no organized religion then the religious way of thinking
permeate all their lives. I´m not trying to be pejorative. But the
religious instinct in the primitive sense is not about love and compassion,
but the
are chosen.
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-07-10, 17:05:13
Subject: Re: the love torture
I do
On 7/10/2013 2:05 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I do not exactly agree. since religion is a natural inclination, and atheists have no
organized religion then the religious way of thinking permeate all their lives. I´m not
trying to be pejorative. But the religious instinct in the primitive sense
Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-07-10, 17:05:13
Subject: Re: the love torture
I do not exactly agree. since
On 7/10/2013 3:48 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
More recently I heard tell of a woman preacher who suddenly announced to her
starteled congfregation that at last she was free, she
had becomnwe an atheist.
That feeling of freedom is normal. after a while she will fee a vacuum since the
religious
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:36:24 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're suggesting that even if one implant works as well as the
original, multiple implants would not. Is there a critical replacement
limit, 20% you feel normal but 21% you don't? How have you arrived at
this
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. It's one thing for a person to use an artificial hand, but what is
it that learns to use an artificial 'you'? It's hard for me to understand
how this obvious Grand Canyon is repeatedly glossed over in these
On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:08:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're suggesting that even if one implant works as well as the
original, multiple implants would not. Is there a critical replacement
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're not really answering the question. The neural implants are
refined to the point where thousands of people are walking around with
them with no problem. Any objective or subjective test thrown at them
they pass.
On 01 Oct 2012, at 18:03, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're not really answering the question. The neural implants are
refined to the point where thousands of people are walking around
with
them with no problem.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:03:38 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're not really answering the question. The neural implants are
refined to the point where thousands of people are walking around with
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the implants worked as implants without experiences the person
would behave as if everything were fine while internally and
impotently noticing that his experiences were disappearing or
changing. Do you
On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:09:53 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But if the implants worked as implants without experiences the person
would behave as if everything were fine while internally and
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so you put in the brain implant, switch it in and out of circuit
without telling the subject which is which, and ask them how they
feel. They can't tell any difference and you can't tell any difference
in
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:19:15 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
OK, so you put in the brain implant, switch it in and out of circuit
without telling the subject which is which, and ask them how they
On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as
good as normal hearing. But technology keeps
On 9/30/2012 2:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as
good as
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:45:56 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 2:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as
good as normal
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The principle is not the same. You cannot get a head transplant and assume
that the 'you'-ness is going to magically follow the scalpel into your head
from your body. You cannot get a prosthetic head, because without
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:42:56 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The principle is not the same. You cannot get a head transplant and
assume
that the 'you'-ness is going to magically follow the
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What test do you use to determine if it is still you after a certain
procedure?
You do half of the procedure, then walk them back off, then the other half
and walk them back off, then you do the whole procedure
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:42:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
What test do you use to determine if it is still you after a certain
procedure?
You do half of the procedure, then walk
On 9/27/2012 11:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Are you saying that you expect replacing someone's brain would be
no more problematic than replacing any other body part?
Craig
Hi Craig,
I kinda have to side with Stathis a bit here. The problem that
you are hinging
On Friday, September 28, 2012 2:44:32 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/27/2012 11:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Are you saying that you expect replacing someone's brain would be no
more problematic than replacing any other body part?
Craig
Hi Craig,
I kinda have to
Brent, I 'experienced' such situation in 1944 when the Nazi Gendarme's Pol.
Police arrested me on suspicion to be part of the underground anti-Nazis
(what was true). I made them 'believe' about being an at least 'neutral'
grad student so they asked questions before torture started. I
Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/28/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-27, 23:28:27
Subject: Re: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture
On Thursday
Say that you have been captured by the [totalitarian fiend of your choice],
and are tied up in a basement somewhere. The torture has begun, and is has
become clear that it will continue to get worse until you 'become one of
them'.
Fortunately you have been supplied by your team
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Say that you have been captured by the [totalitarian fiend of your choice],
and are tied up in a basement somewhere. The torture has begun, and is has
become clear that it will continue to get worse until you 'become
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:40:14 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Say that you have been captured by the [totalitarian fiend of your
choice],
and are tied up in a basement somewhere. The torture
On 9/27/2012 7:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The perfect actor might believe it or he might just be acting. Acting
is top-down replacement, not bottom-up replacement. Bottom-up
replacement would involve replacing a part of your brain so that you
didn't notice any difference and
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Replacing body parts that break down with artificial ones is
well-established in the medical industry, and will become increasingly
so in future as the devices become more sophisticated.
Are you saying that you
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:05:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 7:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The perfect actor might believe it or he might just be acting. Acting
is top-down replacement, not bottom-up replacement. Bottom-up
replacement would involve replacing a part of
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:16:12 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Replacing body parts that break down with artificial ones is
well-established in the medical industry, and will become
],
and are tied up in a basement somewhere. The torture has begun,
and is has
become clear that it will continue to get worse until you
'become one of
them'.
Fortunately you have been supplied by your team with a
'Chalmers' device,
which allows you to know
On 9/27/2012 8:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:05:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 7:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The perfect actor might believe it or he might just be acting. Acting
is top-down replacement, not bottom-up
been captured by the [totalitarian fiend of your
choice],
and are tied up in a basement somewhere. The torture has begun, and is
has
become clear that it will continue to get worse until you 'become one
of
them'.
Fortunately you have been supplied by your team with a 'Chalmers
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:56:58 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 8:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:05:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 7:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The perfect actor might believe it or he might just be acting.
On 9/27/2012 9:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:56:58 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 8:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:05:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 7:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:56:58 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Then I would say it's not distinct from 'being'. It is no longer a
choice, I'm going to act. motivated by some particular situation.
Brent
Think of it as an 'auto-pilot' functionality. Instead of getting a brain
On Friday, September 28, 2012 12:03:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 9:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:56:58 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/27/2012 8:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:05:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Lee Corbin writes:
[quoting Stathis Papaioannou]
Certainly, this is the objective truth, and I'm very fond of the
objective
truth. But when we are talking about first person experience, we are not
necessarily claiming that they provide us with objective knowledge of
the
world; we are only
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:42:17PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
No, it's not the same program.
What do you mean? I am postulating that it *is* the same sequence
of code bytes, the *same* program. Do you know what I mean when
I say that program A is the same program as program B?
An
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
You can be in two places at the same time, but you can't
enjoy two different scenarios, or think individual thoughts.
I disagree. Again, you slide back and forth between instantiations
and programs, which, as you know, are not
Eric Cavalcanti writes:
But even in a MWI perspective, they are surely very different
processes, as someone else argued. Tossing a coin does not increase
the number of copies of yourself in the multiverse. Pushing the button
does. There is a symmetry between the two versions of yourself in the
Eugen writes
A program can run in two different places at the same time, and
the program (treated as the pattern) is perfectly capable of
receiving input X in one location at the same time that it
No, program is the wrong model. You can have identical pieces of a bit
pattern (CD-ROM,
Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from
the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you
believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least
one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are
Bruno wrote
Le 23-juin-05, ? 05:38, Lee Corbin a ?crit :
you *can* be in two places at the same time.
From a third person pov: OK.
From a first person pov: how?
Right. From a first person... you cannot be. This further
illustrates the limitations of the first person account, its
Stathis has another good thought experiment.
You are in a room strapped to an electric chair with a counter counting down
from one minute. There are two buttons accessible to you on the chair,
marked A and B. Pressing button A will cause the chair either to release
you, with Pr=0.4, or
Lee Corbin writes:
The objective view, which brings us much more into alignment
with what is actually the case, is, as always, the third-person
point of view.
A good historical analogy is this: to really understand the
planets, moons, and sun, it was necessary to totally abandon
the
Stathis writes
same here; if you are interested in knowing what the
case is, and not merely what the appearances are, then you
have to understand that you are a physical process, and it
may so happen that you execute in different places, and in
different times, and that overlaps are
Le 24-juin-05, à 15:54, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Lest anyone take Jonathan Colvin's thought experiment as evidence that
the copy isn't really you, here is a variation in which the
situation is reversed:
Stathis' the copy and the chair is here
I can see an interesting new problem in this thread. Let me put it in a thought
experiment as the praxis in this list requires.
You are in the same torture room as before, but now the guy is going to
torture you to death. You have three options:
A: you flip a coin to decide whether you
Eric Cavalcanti writes:
You are in the same torture room as before, but now the guy is going to
torture you to death. You have three options:
A: you flip a coin to decide whether you are going to be tortured;
B: you press the copy button 100 times;
C: you press the copy button once.
What do
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:08:39PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 23-juin-05, ? 05:38, Lee Corbin a ?crit :
you *can* be
in two places at the same time.
From a third person pov: OK.
From a first person pov: how?
You can be in two places at the same time, but you can't enjoy two
Le 24-juin-05, à 17:23, Eugen Leitl a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:08:39PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 23-juin-05, ? 05:38, Lee Corbin a ?crit :
you *can* be
in two places at the same time.
From a third person pov: OK.
From a first person pov: how?
You can be in two places at
Lee Corbin writes:
quote--
[quoting Stathis]
When you press the button in the torture room, there is a 50%
chance that your next moment will be in the same room and and
a 50% chance that it will be somewhere else where you won't be
tortured. However, this constraint has been added
time I press it, I also step out of a booth in Moscow,
relieved to be pain-free (shortly to be followed by a second me, then a
third, each one successively more relieved.) But I'm still choosing (1).
Now, the funny thing is, if you replace torture by getting shot in the
head, then I will pick (2
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Suppose there had already been a copy made, and the two of you
were sitting side-by-side, with the torturer giving you the
following options:
A. He will flip a coin, and one of you two will get tortured
B. He points to you and says I'm definitely going to torture
the guy
Stathis wrote:
When you press the button in the torture room, there is a 50%
chance that your next moment will be in the same room and and
a 50% chance that it will be somewhere else where you won't be
tortured. However, this constraint has been added to the
experiment: suppose you end up
Jonathan Colvin writes:
Stathis wrote:
When you press the button in the torture room, there is a 50%
chance that your next moment will be in the same room and and
a 50% chance that it will be somewhere else where you won't be
tortured. However, this constraint has been added to the
experiment
on one.
I do notice this email:
Jonathan Colvin writes:
Stathis wrote:
When you press the button in the torture room, there is a 50%
chance that your next moment will be in the same room and and
a 50% chance that it will be somewhere else where you won't be
tortured. However, this constraint
Stathis wrote:
When you press the button in the torture room, there is a
50% chance
that your next moment will be in the same room and and a
50% chance
that it will be somewhere else where you won't be
tortured. However,
this constraint has been added to the
experiment
I (Jonathan Colvin) wrote:
When you press the button in the torture room, there is a
50% chance
that your next moment will be in the same room and and a
50% chance
that it will be somewhere else where you won't be
tortured. However,
this constraint has been added
more relieved.) But I'm still choosing (1).
Now, the funny thing is, if you replace torture by getting shot in the
head, then I will pick (2). That's interesting, isn't it?
Jonathan Colvin
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:05:02AM -0700, Jonathan Colvin wrote:
Now, the funny thing is, if you replace torture by getting shot in the
head, then I will pick (2). That's interesting, isn't it?
Why is that interesting? It's indistinguishable from a teleportation
scenario.
--
Eugen* Leitl
make you be willing to
accept torture of a person you view as a future self, in exchange for
the opportunity to so greatly increase your measure.
OTOH if copying is common and most people don't do it because the future
copies will be penniless and starve to death, then making copies
Le 21-juin-05, à 13:05, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :
Sorry, I can't let go of this one. I'm trying to understand it
psychologically.
Here's another thought experiment which is roughly equivalent to our
original scenario.
You are sitting in a room, with a not very nice man.
He gives you two
and the reconstituted people are zombies.
This is also the reason why I choose (A) a 50% chance of torture over (B)
being copied ten times, and one copy getting tortured (where it is suggested
there is only a 10% chance of me getting tortured).
Remember that for me this sort of reasoning always suppose
it makes no sense (to me) to take the position that
if I copy myself, there is a 50% chance of (A) me being observer A, and a
50% chance of (B) me being observer B. There is no difference between (A)
and (B).
This is also the reason why I choose (A) a 50% chance of torture over (B)
being copied ten
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
Jesse Mazer wrote:
[quoting Stathis]
You are one of 10 copies who are being tortured. The copies are all being
run in lockstep with each other, as would occur if 10 identical computers
were running 10 identical sentient programs. Assume that the torture is so
bad that death is preferable
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 05:26 PM
Subject: Re: more torture
Saibal Mitra writes:
Because no such thing as free will exists one has to consider three
outflow rate, then I don't think it's
possible to make sense of the notion that the observer-moments in that
torture-free minute would have 10^100 times greater absolute measure. If
there's 10^100 times more water in the tanks corresponding to OMs during
that minute, where does all this water go
I wrote:
No, I don't think they don't all have to have the same volume,
Whoops, weird double negative here...that should read I don't think they
all have to have the same volume.
Jesse
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
