On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 08:43:09AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2015, at 09:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity
because it isn't even coherent. It's like youre getting mad at
him for explaining
On 20 April 2015 at 21:44, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity because it
isn't even coherent. It's like youre getting mad
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
I thought this was basic relativity 101? The video gives a concrete example
with a train moving at relativistic speeds through a tunnel. The train
lorentz contracts such that it is shorter than the tunnel. To an observer
outside the
On 4/20/2015 3:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
No, it's actually completely indeterminant whether I am the closest
continuer or not. There might be a six year old somewhere who is more
psychologically like my 5 year old self than I am and with a higher
fraction of the molecules
No one cares who inherits the farm. Subjective expectation is the crux of
personal identity. You can't tell me that whether i wake up in Moscow
depends on whether or not a reconstruction event happened at Helsinki
faster than signals can travel between the two.
On Monday, April 20, 2015, Bruce
Chris:
I should not have an argument with your post, first: because you added ONE
word to the topic - INDUSTRIAL - to civilization. I did not say that.
I hinted to my inquisitivness to *'identify'* civilization as we speak
about it. It is not a human technological one, just as termites did not
Dennis Ochei wrote:
Oh i see the issue. I didn't realize you'd assume the scanner is
immobile. Immobilizing it relative to everything in the universe is
uhhh... rather difficult.
The scanning event is taken as a single point in space-time. Mobility is
irrelevant. If you create duplicates,
I have to say that the point under discussion SHOULD be the nature of
subjective experience, surely? That is, why do we feel as though we have
continuity? (And does the answer to that preclude duplicators etc?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Having reached the end, I was interested to know what this endnote refered
to...
2 I suggest to the quantum physicist reader to show, as an exercise, that
the quantum non-cloning theorem cannot be used to refute this reasoning.
Hint: use the fact that a quantum computer does not violate the
LizR wrote:
Having reached the end, I was interested to know what this endnote
refered to...
2 I suggest to the quantum physicist reader to show, as an exercise,
that the quantum non-cloning theorem cannot be used to refute this
reasoning. Hint: use the fact that a quantum computer does not
On 20 April 2015 at 14:34, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think achieveability or truth or logic has anything to do with
it. I think environmentalists tailor their message to scare their target
audience as much as
I side with Matt Ridley where the wealthier people are, the more concerned
about the environment.they become. The better the technology, the better easier
it is on the land. People who don't have to chop down forests to survive, let
the forest be, The biggest help in this has been methane gas
sigh... Parfit does away with personal identity, replacing it with
psychological connectedness relation R. Past and future selves are not
identical to you, but are new persons that are like you to a high degree.
Your relationship to your past and future selves are much like your
relationship to
On 21 April 2015 at 11:11, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I side with Matt Ridley where the wealthier people are, the more concerned
about the environment.they become.
You'd think they would, if they were rational, but I haven't yet seen any
evidence
Dennis Ochei wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
I thought this was basic relativity 101? The video gives a concrete
example with a train moving at relativistic speeds through a tunnel. The
train lorentz contracts such that it is shorter than the tunnel. To an
Oh i see the issue. I didn't realize you'd assume the scanner is immobile.
Immobilizing it relative to everything in the universe is uhhh... rather
difficult.
On Monday, April 20, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
Do you have a coherent, non arbitrary theory of personal identity that
claims 1) Teletransportation creates a new person, killing the original and
2) Ordinary survival does not create a new person, killing the original?
Let me remind you, although you probably know this, that all your atoms
On 21 April 2015 at 02:17, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
The problem is that there isn't like there is not environmental damage,
the problem is they use this as an excuse to regulate more. No
technological solution all regulation. One name for these
Dennis Ochei wrote:
No, it's actually completely indeterminant whether I am the closest
continuer or not. There might be a six year old somewhere who is more
psychologically like my 5 year old self than I am and with a higher
fraction of the molecules I was made of when I was 5.
Or suppose I
Dennis Ochei wrote:
Huh? The scan was destructive according to your account!
That does not preclude me from having a closest continuer. CCT says that
teletransportation perserves identity. This is just a teleportation to
the same location. Or perhaps you missed the part were it
Bruce Kellett wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
Huh? The scan was destructive according to your account!
That does not preclude me from having a closest continuer. CCT says
that teletransportation perserves identity. This is just a
teleportation to the same location. Or perhaps you missed the
CCT doesn't have to entail physical continuity. The standard CCT seems to
first use psychological similarty and in the case of ties physical
continuity, but you could also imagine a purely paychological or purely
physical CCT. My problem with CCT is that the rules for ties are ad hoc
legal
Alberto wrote:
*Wow!*
*It sems that one image is worth a thousands Shakespeare books..*
Just to compare with your denigration of my apotheosis for the
'information' we may estimate in (digital?) pictures.
44 trillion gigabytes of info in the digital universe by 2020?
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2015, at 09:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity because it
isn't even coherent. It's like youre getting mad at him for
explaining combustion without reference to phlogiston. He can't use
the
Dennis Ochei wrote:
Do you have a coherent, non arbitrary theory of personal identity that
claims 1) Teletransportation creates a new person, killing the original
It is a possible theory. See D Parfit, 'Reasons and Persons' (Oxford, 1984).
and 2) Ordinary survival does not create a new
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/20/2015 3:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Time order along a time-like world line is invariant under Lorentz
transformations.I suggest that you don't know what you are talking about.
The information from the scan could be transmitted to spacelike separate
reconstruction
Huh? The scan was destructive according to your account!
That does not preclude me from having a closest continuer. CCT says that
teletransportation perserves identity. This is just a teleportation to the
same location. Or perhaps you missed the part were it reconstitutes me at
t+epsilon and
Oops that should have been two-party system not teo
On 21 April 2015 at 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 11:11, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I side with Matt Ridley where the wealthier people are, the more
concerned about
Right, mobility is irrelevant. I mispoke.
On Monday, April 20, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
Oh i see the issue. I didn't realize you'd assume the scanner is
immobile. Immobilizing it relative to everything in the universe is uhhh...
rather
On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But those who gave me the price in Paris
The PRIZE
K
--
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,
Thanks for picking this up Liz. It has piqued my interest too!
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:32:22PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Having reached the end, I was interested to know what this endnote refered
to...
2 I suggest to the quantum physicist reader to show, as an exercise, that
the quantum
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I side with Matt Ridley where the wealthier people are, the more
concerned about the environment.they become.
You'd think they would, if they were rational, but I haven't yet seen any
evidence for this. Plenty for the reverse,
Russell Standish wrote:
There is another way of looking at this. Assume a robust ontology, so
that the UD actually runs completely. Then the closest continuation
theory coupled with computationalism predicts the absence of any
discontinuities of experience, such as what I experience evry night
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity
because it isn't even coherent. It's like youre getting mad
The amazing thing is how what would happen in 100 trillion years may
preoccupy so seriously to some people that would induce to suicide.
Boltzman committed suicide in part because his own theories of
termodinamical dead of the universe more or less.
Other people are influenced equally hard, but
Closest continuer theory is itself a redefinition of the lay conception and is
frankly absurd. Semiconservative replication doesn't kill me. And the lay
understanding considers teletransportation as equivalent to death, contra
closest continuer theory.
--
You received this message because you
* once day by day survival is solved, people need a meaning.*
That is why modern people put his life at risk in extreme sports and so on:
short term risk evade from existential vacuum.
2015-04-20 12:49 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
The amazing thing is how what would happen
Closest continuer theory is itself a redefinition of the lay conception and is
frankly absurd. Semiconservative replication doesn't kill me. And the lay
understanding considers teletransportation as equivalent to death, contra
closest continuer theory.
Combustion is the everyday concept and
I also was member of Greenpeace, until I saw how corrupt this people was.
Shortly after the creation, it was infiltrated by the reds. They became
useful idiots. And what happens with people that lie and exaggerate is that
they are the first victims of their own lies.
Now these movements are clubs
Your accent is pleasant. Is there going to be more?
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to
On 20 April 2015 at 17:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
No mention of NZ. Is that because rather than invest they simply bought
the entire country outright? Who Flung Dung, the famous Chinese economist
says they want the whole of the South Island as a retirement village,
haven’t
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity because it
isn't even coherent. It's like youre getting mad at him for explaining
combustion without reference to phlogiston. He can't
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity because it isn't even
coherent. It's like youre getting mad at him for explaining combustion without
reference to phlogiston. He can't use the everyday notion because it is a
convenient fiction.
I don't think
I think that the subjective perception of the amount of information can e
done mathemaically in the future.
Some speculations:
This subjective value can be made objective if we add the subject state to
the equation. Two different subjects perceive different quantities of
information is because
The problem is that there isn't like there is not environmental damage, the
problem is they use this as an excuse to regulate more. No technological
solution all regulation. One name for these types is watermelon. Why
watermelon? Green on the outside, Red on the inside. We need no regulations
Closest continuer seems technically plausible, even in the John Hick way. But
it does point out that identity, cannot, over long enough time, remain the
same. Are we not closest continuers of the 5 year olds we used to be? Death
should not be a big problem if the closest continuer is close to
Boltzmann will return as a Boltzmann Brain. Nietzsche, screams from the grave,
Ach! the Eternal Return!, but you will not remember your previous existence!
If you hold, as Tegmark and Lloyd say, that under the universe are programs,
then Boltzmann and Nietzsche will likely re-exist, or maybe
I think his problem is that you are using an impoverished definition of
personal identity, the same way an incompatibilist would be annoyed at the
compatibilist redefinition of free will. I have to admit that as an
incompatibilist i am annoyed by this move, but in your case i am not bothered
No, it's actually completely indeterminant whether I am the closest continuer
or not. There might be a six year old somewhere who is more psychologically
like my 5 year old self than I am and with a higher fraction of the molecules I
was made of when I was 5.
Or suppose I get into a matter
On 20 Apr 2015, at 13:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity
because it
On 17 Apr 2015, at 09:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
snip
Physicalism
On 20 Apr 2015, at 09:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Dennis Ochei wrote:
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity because
it isn't even coherent. It's like youre getting mad at him for
explaining combustion without reference to phlogiston. He can't use
the everyday notion
One must revise the everyday concept of personal identity because it isn't even
coherent. It's like youre getting mad at him for explaining combustion without
reference to phlogiston. He can't use the everyday notion because it is a
convenient fiction.
--
You received this message because you
53 matches
Mail list logo
