On 19 Sep 2017, at 22:19, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> before their specific experiences there were not two
copies, neither the Washington man nor the Moscow man existed, only
the Helsinki man existed. You can't make a prediction, or do
anything else, IF YOU DON'T EXIST!
> That does not make sense to me.
It makes no sense to me either!
Good.
You complain that yesterday the Moscow man
Well, that could be confusing. Yesterday the Moscow man we can see
today, was the Helsinki man. better to keep calling it that way. They
are the same person of course (assuming mechanism ...).
couldn't predict that he would see Moscow,
Yes, indeed. he would have written "M", that wopuld be refuted by the
W-guy, and we have decided that a good theory/prediction must be valid
for all copies.
but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT
EXIST.
That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in Helsinki, he
has all the relevant memories, or he did not survive and
computationalism is false.
It was the very act of seeing Moscow that turned the Helsinki man
into the Moscow man,
Without in any way killing the Helsinki man, or comp (yes doctor + CT)
is false.
but yesterday the Helsinki man COULD have predicted that and
yesterday the Helsinki man was the only one capable of predicting
anything because yesterday the Helsinki man was the only one that
existed.
And as sure as day follows night you will come back with "in the 3p
view not the 1p" as if that chant explains everything.
No. In this case you are just not using the personal identity criteria
we have agreed on. Now you tlak like if the Helsinki guy is killed
when opening the door. But that makes no sense.
What does it even mean? Who exactly is the prediction about?
The question is simply what should a believer in computationalism
expect when undergoing the step-3 WM-duplication experience. In a
written modern exam you would have the choice to mention which is the
correct expectation among:
a) I expect to feel myself in one of the two cities, W or M. P(W v M)
= 1
b) I expect to feel myself in two cities at once: W and M. P( W & M) = 1
c) I expect to feel myself in W. P(W) = 1
d) I expect to feel myself in M. P(M) = 1.
By definition, a correct or accurate prediction is one verified by all
copies (in the finite case), and almost all copies in the infinite case.
here "I" denote the person to which the question is asked before he
push on the button.
Who do you wan't to make the prediction and lament that he can not?
We are telling you that kids can find the accurate prediction without
any trouble. There is nothing to lament about. What you can't predict
is the specific location, but you can predict "W v M" with total
confidence.
You talk like if that was controversial, but it is not. It follows
quasi doirectly from the definition of the 1p and 3p notion used in
this context, and the criteria of personal identity used.
Actually you got it yesterday, and just said that it was trivial and
that nobody is interested, instead of the normal "I got the point so
let us move to the next point".
And who is Mr He?? And while your at at, please explain what on
earth expectations or predictions have to do with consciousness or
the computational theory of mind.
> That would refute the coin throwing statistics too.
Damn right! Coin throwing statistics are logical and it
all makes perfect sense, your thought experiment is dreadfully
inconsistent and is filled with pronouns with no clear referent. At
one point "he" seems to refer (although I could be wrong) to the
person currently experiencing Moscow but a few word later in the
same sentence "he" seems to refer to the person that will experience
Moscow tomorrow and a few words later "he" seems to be someone who
expects to experience Moscow tomorrow and a few words later
"he" seems to be someone tomorrow who remembers seeing Helsinki
today and a few words later "he" seems to be someone who will
experience Washington tomorrow and a few words later "he"
seems to be ....
And then you ask a nonsense question like "What one and
only one thing will *he* see tomorrow after *he* becomes two?" or
even worse "What one and only one thing will *he* expect to see
tomorrow after *he* becomes two?" Peas just ain't going be
enough to fix monumental flaws like that.
> We agreed that the W-man and the M-man are the Helsinki man,
No we don't agree! I think "the Helsinki man" means anybody
tomorrow who remembers being the Helsinki man today, so obviously if
that's what the phrase means then the Helsinki man will see 2 cities
tomorrow. But you insist the Helsinki man will see only one city
tomorrow, so you must mean something else by by "the Helsinki
man" but I have no idea what that is.
> So there is no guy who ever cease to exist.
But there are 2 guys who haven't come into existence yet
because they won't see their respective cities until tomorrow, so
it's a little unfair to ask them to make predictions because
nonexistence rather severely handicaps ones predictive ability.
> Do you agree that in the case you are told (you, the guy in
Helsinki, before duplication) that the two copies will be offered a
cup of tea in W and in M, you can predict in Helsinki that after you
push on the button, you will drink a cup of tea?
John Clark can neither agree nor disagree with that until Bruno
Marchal explains if "you" is only the guy currently in Helsinki
today or if "you" includes guys who tomorrow will remember being in
Helsinki today.
This has been answered many times. "you" means the guy in Helsinki,
and in the question asked to him, "you" refers to the personal
possible experiences lived by both copies in the two cities. But the
question is about what you expect to feel, which then will, after the
duplication refer to one precise city, indeed for BOTH of them. Just
use the diaries, instead of mocking them, as they make all your points
irrelevant. What can the H-guy can expect to live? An experience of
drinking some tea? or not? Do you write in your diary, in Helsinki:
a) I expect to never drink any of those cup of teas
b) I expect to drink some tea soon.
?
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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 this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
