I wrote
> P.S. Platonists != UDist-ers != "computationalists" != COMP
and meant != to have the programming meaning of "not equal".
For example, I am a (math) Platonist and also a computationalist,
but don't know enough about (Bruno's) COMP to say anything, and
am skeptical of UDist.
Sure
Russell said (Hal's paraphrase)
> > > I guess that you would say that if the unused
> > > counterfactual machinery would actually work if tested, then she is
> > > conscious; but if the counterfactual machines were broken or blocked
> > > such that they wouldn't work (even though they are not used
Stephen has a number of fine questions about Hal's paper
(way *too* many, really) and while I am still working on
what one or two questions I may pose, there is one of
Stephen's questions that perhaps I can answer:
> I am still worried about how a measure can exist over a set, collection,
>
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 09:42:06AM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote:
>
> Russell replied:
> > That is indeed my meaning. What difficulties do you see?
>
> I see a few problems. The first is the concept that the multiverse
> will contain copies of the machine that execute the counterfactuals.
> While th
Yes indeed, one may take this as their idea of "objective reality",
but then by its very definition, this objective reality is
"unknowable". In fact, its not only "until we wait for the photons to
reach us" that we can't know this reality, even when they reach us, it
is only our brain telling us th
Lee and Bruno,
I will interject a few remarks
John M
--- Lee Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno writes
>
> > Le 07-août-05, à 21:24, John M a écrit :
>
> > > Reality is supposed to be something independent
> from
> > > our personal manipulations
> >
> > Strictly speaking I do not agree.
I speculated:
> > I guess that you would say that if the unused
> > counterfactual machinery would actually work if tested, then she is
> > conscious; but if the counterfactual machines were broken or blocked
> > such that they wouldn't work (even though they are not used) then she
> > is unconscio
Bruno writes
> Le 07-août-05, à 21:24, John M a écrit :
> > Reality is supposed to be something independent from
> > our personal manipulations
>
> Srtictly speaking I do not agree. Some satellites of Earth are human
> made, and local "physical reality" can depends, at least locally, on
> us.
Su
Le 08-août-05, à 00:11, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Jesse and Norman gave excellent reasons for us not to abandon the
objective stance.
I think we all agree here. I am not sure that anyone regular in this
list has ever abandon or proposed to abandon the objective stance.
It is quite the contrary, c
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:35:42PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> Russell Standish writes:
> > The take home message I get from Maudlin's experiment is that a
> > computationalist consciousness is supervenient on a physical process
> > _spread_ over the multiverse, ie the counterfactuals must really
Le 07-août-05, à 21:24, John M a écrit :
Dear Bruno, you (and as I guess: others, too) use the
subject phrase. Does it make sense?
What do you mean by "use the subject phrase"?
Reality is supposed to be something independent from
our personal manipulations
Srtictly speaking I do not a
Le 07-août-05, à 22:41, John M a écrit :
Bruno, just got the news, maybe you are interested:
Torkel Franzén, and is entitled Gödel's Theorem: An
Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse. [ISBN
1568812388] As evidenced from the title, the primary
focus of the book is to identify the specific natur
Russell Standish writes:
> The take home message I get from Maudlin's experiment is that a
> computationalist consciousness is supervenient on a physical process
> _spread_ over the multiverse, ie the counterfactuals must really exist
> as alternate branches of the Multiverse.
So what does that te
13 matches
Mail list logo
