Re: The MGA revisited

Le 27 mars 2015 05:58, "LizR" a écrit : > > On 27 March 2015 at 17:13, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR wrote: >>> >>> PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what you're saying. But maybe not. So ..

Re: The MGA revisited

meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's counterfactually correct if it doesn't

Re: The MGA revisited

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, March 27, 2015, LizR On 27 March 2015 at 01:02, Bruce Kellett Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett This comes back to my original question: since all pos

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 17:35, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: > > On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of > Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably > the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system *know* it's > cou

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 17:13, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR wrote: > >> PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what >> you're saying. But maybe not. So does contradicition arise because you >> assume to start with that consci

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's counterfactually correct if it doesn't actually pass throu

Re: The MGA revisited

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR wrote: > PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what > you're saying. But maybe not. So does contradicition arise because you > assume to start with that consciousness is created by computation, then > show that it would also (a

Re: The MGA revisited

On Friday, March 27, 2015, LizR wrote: > On 27 March 2015 at 01:02, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >> >>> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >>> >>> This comes back to

Re: The MGA revisited

LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's counterfactually correct if it doesn't actually pass through any of the "wha

Re: The MGA revisited

PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what you're saying. But maybe not. So does contradicition arise because you assume to start with that consciousness is created by computation, then show that it would also (assuming physical supervenience) arise from something th

Re: The MGA revisited

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> PGC wrote: >> >> Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or >> sol

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: I simply say, so what! Counterfactual equivalence does not have any independent justification, and it is highly unlike to be sensible, even in the context of computationalism. You

Re: The MGA revisited

Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: PGC wrote: Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or solved by "how somebody feels about it"? It's via contradiction/standard

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: I simply say, so what! Counterfactual equivalence does not have any independent justification, and it is highly unlike to be sensible, even in the context of computationalism. You are quick here. I might explain the strobos

Re: The MGA revisited

Actually I'd like to know where the contradiction is too (and I have read Bruno's papers, and "The Amoeba's Secret", and of course Bruno has done his best to teach me some modal logic...) ...but I still have difficulty following the MGA. It has been explained (at least at times) as showing that "i

Re: The MGA revisited

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > PGC wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or solved by "how >> somebody feels about it"? >> >> It's via contradiction/standard reductio: assume conclusion false and >> negation to be true, and from t

Re: The MGA revisited

PGC wrote: On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:43:04 AM UTC+1, Bruce wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which >> one of the two, and I can't say that my

Re: The MGA revisited

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:43:04 AM UTC+1, Bruce wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> > >> If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which > >> one of the two, and I can't say that my last remembered moment wa

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which one of the two, and I can't say that my last remembered moment was run on one or other or my next anticipated moment will be run on one or other. If

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 12:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >: This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that c

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 27 March 2015 at 05:53, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > > >> According to Quantum Mechanics depending on circumstances sometimes you >>> get interference and sometimes you don't, and we're talking about analogies >>> here and what it would take for the copying

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

The problem is that this puts all the power in the hands of big business, who don't have the interests of anyone but their shareholders at heart. Also it leads to more repressive laws. This is in fact the destruction of western democracy that is the aim of the jihadists and so on (which is in turn

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Agreed. But the question is more between :are we fundamentally mammals living on earth, or are we universal numbers living in arithmetic, deluded by oracles or other universal numbers. That seems to me to be the same as the question am I a brain in a

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux >: 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >:

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 01:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >> >> This comes back to my original question: since all possible >> progra

Re: The MGA revisited

On 25 Mar 2015, at 21:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 16:35 GMT+01:00 Stathis Papaioannou : On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : Quent

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Multiple realisation does not undermine physical supervenience... what undermine it, is that you're forced to accept (with the movie graph argument) that the consciousness i

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 13:06, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 13:02 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 12:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>: This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that conscious beings

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 07:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Mar 2015, at 06:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: In fact, I can write computer programs where the laws of physics change from instant to instant. Why do we not ex

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 01:07, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 3:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that one of the possible substrates is inert matter, which seems so absurd that we should conclude the matter plays

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-03-26 18:15 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > >> > the N liar clark after the experiment will see [...] >> > > Hey Quentin I just figured out a new and really cool thought experiment, > suppose you were to fuck yourself and the horse you r

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > the N liar clark after the experiment will see [...] > Hey Quentin I just figured out a new and really cool thought experiment, suppose you were to fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on, what do you suppose would happen? John K

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

And round and round we go... In a measurement setup experiment, if MWI is true (either it is with differentiation or splitting) the N liar clark after the experiment will see one definite result, none will have a superposed memory with multiple results existing in their mind, the unequivocal liar c

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:10:37AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:48:52AM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 meekerdb wrote: >> According to Quantum Mechanics depending on circumstances sometimes you >> get interference and sometimes you don't, and we're talking about analogies >> here and what it would take for the copying machine stuff to be a good >> analogy for the MWI. If ther

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 04:39, LizR wrote: Apologies "Movie Graph Argument" - from Bruno's 2004 paper I believe. Actually, MGA appears in step 8, but is not explained in the sane04 paper. I only referred to it. The original publication is Marchal, B., "informatique et théorie de l'esprit", A

Re: The MGA revisited

On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" mailto:allco...@gmail.com

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

spudboy. Well said. Indeed, there are a massive change in vote from the extreme left to nationalism in countries like France, out of Fear of Islam based on direct personal experiences. (In France the islam is something that you watch everyday even if you have the TV switched off). The problem is

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-26 13:02 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >> >> This comes back to my original question: since all possible >> programs >>

Re: The MGA revisited

Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that consc

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett > >: >> >> This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs >> are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that conscious b

Re: The MGA revisited

Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >: This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that conscious beings see an ordered and predictable world. Only a set

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

Well, its not the new jihadists I blame, but the (yes) leftist academics, politicians, and news thugs, that have long, empowered, and made excuses for these aggressors. My suspicion is that they see the jihadists worldwide as being able to topple their shared "capitalist enemies." Why else woul

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 25 Mar 2015, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> Multiple realisation does not undermine physical supervenience... what >>> undermine it, is that you're forced to accept (with the movie graph >>> argument) that the consci

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

I don´t know what to choose either the "civilization" of the horde of cavemen or the set of pseudo enlightened idiots that renegate of everything except themselves, that defecate over their ancestors and judge the world from the stratosphere in which they live, with little or no knowledge, maybe so

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Multiple realisation does not undermine physical supervenience... what undermine it, is that you're forced to accept (with the movie graph argument) that the consciousness is supervening on the movie + broken gate... which