date:20171002

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:51, Terren Suydam wrote:

Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that  one stream of  
consciousness is in Moscow or Washington?


Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person indeterminacy.  
I'll get the champagne.


If you drink champagne each time John shows understanding, you will  
become an alcoholic! The problem is not so much his understanding,  
than his will to acknowledge that understanding.


I suggest you reserve the champagne when he moves to step 4.

Hmm... that might never happen, so OK, just one glass,

Cheers, and thank for you courageous attempt.

Bruno







--
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.

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Sep 2017, at 20:23, John Clark wrote:




On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Terren Suydam  wrote:


> There's one stream of consciousness. And you correctly  
realized that nobody can *ever* tell you if that one stream of  
consciousness is in Moscow or in Washington.


I would go even further than that, nobody can  *ever* tell me the  
answer and nobody can *ever* tell me what the question was either.


The question is "when in Helsinki, what do you expect to live as first  
person experience".


And the answer is "I expect to feel myself in W or in M", with an  
exclusive "or" because nobody would ever feel to be in the two places  
at once with the protocol given.


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.

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 29 Sep 2017, at 20:02, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Terren Suydam  wrote:

>> Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that  one  
stream of consciousness is in Moscow or Washington?

> Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person  
indeterminacy. I'll get the champagne.

That's it? Bruno's great discovery is that ambiguous questions  
have no answers? I have found one on my own, I call it cat color  
indeterminacy:

 "Today I have two cats a black cat and a white cat, tomorrow what  
will be the color of the one and only cat that I have ever had?".

You prove very well my point. You just prove that the gibberishness  
comes directly by abstracting away from the 1p/3p.

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.

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 02 Oct 2017, at 02:19, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> That is why you don't listen to the copies. They are elves in  
Santa Clause's shop

As I said the copies have nothing to do will it. The elves in  
Santa Clause's shop have just as much to do with this as the copies  
do, nothing. The one person to ask after it is over to learn the  
truth is the one and one one person that is two people; the  
copies are no that, the original is not that, the elves are not  
that, nothing is that.

I have a thought experiment of my own and this is the protocol:
1) I have TWO coins, a regular coin and a two headed coin.
2) I flip both coins.
3) Predict if the one and only coin will land heads or tails.
You can't predict it because of coin indeterminacy.

> Hmm... let me think.
I think that I can't answer, because there is two coins landing on  
the table, so that the question is meaningless.

Very good Bruno! Do you believe there are others or was that  
the only meaningless question in existence?

That question is weird. of course there are many others, but if you  
accept that "coin" can think, then the question or similar becomes  
meaningful because you can apply the 1p-3p distinction. You have just  
mimic the question in a context (coin) where such distinction was  
meaningless. That is poor strategy!

> the last Prize I got disappeared, and the promotion which was  
promised got transformed into widening defamation.

I don't get it, you said I was the only one that disagreed with  
you.

Yes, the disappearance of the prize was not motivated by any  
disagreement. I would have heard them since.

Now, guess what is missing in your coin theorem? The coin 1p/3p  
distinction.

Guess what is missing in the thought experiment. It's the 1p/1p/1p  
distinction because there are three of them and when Bruno Marchal  
refers to "he" or "I" or "you"  or "THE 1p" there is no way of  
knowing which ONE of the THREE Bruno Marchal is referring to.  

You distract yourself from the question asked.

> You don't refute step 3. You just stop

Guilty as charged. It's impossible to refute gibberish because  
there is nothing there to refute, but it is possible to stop reading  
it.

yes. Your refutation is now limited to the insult. If you were feeling  
it is gibberish, you would be able to say something senseful. But you  
just forget the 1p/3p distinction, and then ... get the gibberish  
aspect that you are introducing all by yourself.

> You forget that you agreed that both are the original guy.

No. The original guy is both of them but neither them is the  
original guy,

Then you contradict yourself, as you have agreed many times that the H- 
guy survived in both cities.

the copies have all the memories of the original man but in addition  
they have memories the original man does not have. 

Then you don't survive either with the simple teleportation, and comp  
(CT+YD) is refuted, and ... QED, by reductio ad absurdum.

>> It makes no difference if computationalism is true or  
false,  if there is no question there can be no answer.

> It is just because you deny the answer of the copies.

I can't deny any answer if I don't know the question!

> Then you deny that you survive duplication.

Maybe so, it depends on what "you" means. In my language "you"  
means somebody who remembers  being Bruno Marchal yesterday and so  
"you" has survived, but I don't know what "you" means in Brunospeak.

Good, you come quickly back to the identity criterion on which we both  
agreed, but then you re-contradict yourself, because the H-guy has now  
survived in both places, and so it makes sense to interview them,  
after all. But then we get the first person indeterminacy immediately.

I would say case close. But we know that you will not be happy with  
this, and continue your rhetorical maneuver.

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.

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 02 Oct 2017, at 00:45, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> just ask him to describe from a 1st pov what happens... like  
this: I'm in helsinki, I'm in front of a button, I close my eyes,  
I push on the button, and I open my eyes, and I am ...

Note that you are commenting Quentin here.

I have a better idea. There is no reason to speculate where Mr. I

Mr I, is a joke -, I guess, but it is confusing. "I" is an indexical.  
here is no sense in saying Mr I.

will be, instead just wait 2 seconds for the button to be pushed and  
then simply ask Mr. I where he is, that way everybody will know for  
sure. You've assured me that there is absolutely no ambiguity in any  
of this so I'm sure there will be universal agreement on which of  
the two copies is the one true Mr. I,

Not that is impossible. We have agreed that both are the true "Mr I",  
which is just the Helsinki guy just fater pusjinh the button. Only him  
can say if he FELL to be in W or in M. But both can confirms they  
could not predict the result before pushing the button.

You always talk like if the first person indeterminacy was presented  
as a third person result, which has never been the case. Only you are  
doing this, and it is part of your confusion between 1p and 3p, which  
seems to be deliberate, to be franc.

so just ask that gentleman what city he is in. Problem  
solved.

Sorry, we have to ask BOTH. Just by definition, and to answer the  
question asked.

> Most people ignore that all the UDA [...] John Clark is  
not the only one repeating those lies on me or the notions  
involved [...] . Even my director of thesis eventually justified  
the disappearance of the "Prix Le Monde" by writing a very big lie.

I thought you said I was the only one who had a problem with your  
ideas. 

I am talking about the people reading the argument.

Oh, perhaps you have also not read it, but there are some evidence  
that you have read it up to step 3 which is infinitely more than them.  
There has no be a jury deciding to make the thesis disappears, as you  
should be able to guess. My problem in Brussels have nothing to do  
with my work. It would be far out of the cope of this list to start  
speaking about that. I have never met, not even one minute, the people  
who have rejected my thesis in Brussels, or elsewhere, nor did they  
answer any mails or letters. I saw one of them in the street, but when  
seeing me, he jumped in the first bus he saw. At least, you do fake  
reasoning, and you do illustrate the kind of irrational behavior  
needed to oppose the conclusion, which somehow comfort me a lot.  
Thanks for that.

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.

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

2017-10-02 Thread David Nyman

On 2 Oct 2017 1:58 p.m., "Bruno Marchal"  wrote:

Dear Evgenii,


On 28 Sep 2017, at 21:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:




Long time ago you have discussed Maudlin's paper. At that time I somehow
did not get interested. Yet, other day I have got strong feeling that I
must read Maudlin's paper right now. I guess this could be explained by
peculiarities of the universal dovetailer.

Anyway, I have read Maudlin's paper, then I have read Hoffmanm's Sandman,
and once more Maudlin's paper. I have enjoyed reading, the paper is nicely
written. I guess I have understood the argument. Thank you.



You are welcome. Don't hesitate to ask any further questions. There are
slight differing nuances between the Movie Graph Argument (MGA) and
Maudlin's argument. Also, I have found a way to cut the UDA at step 7


More details please.

, or I could add a simpler step 8.


And here.

David


Kind regards,

Bruno





Best wishes,

Evgenii

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


Dear Evgenii,


On 28 Sep 2017, at 21:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:





Long time ago you have discussed Maudlin's paper. At that time I  
somehow did not get interested. Yet, other day I have got strong  
feeling that I must read Maudlin's paper right now. I guess this  
could be explained by peculiarities of the universal dovetailer.


Anyway, I have read Maudlin's paper, then I have read Hoffmanm's  
Sandman, and once more Maudlin's paper. I have enjoyed reading, the  
paper is nicely written. I guess I have understood the argument.  
Thank you.



You are welcome. Don't hesitate to ask any further questions. There  
are slight differing nuances between the Movie Graph Argument (MGA)  
and Maudlin's argument. Also, I have found a way to cut the UDA at  
step 7, or I could add a simpler step 8.


Kind regards,

Bruno






Best wishes,

Evgenii

--
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.

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

7 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information