Re: for Cosmin

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, but I don't see your point. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:43 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:31:11 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Since consciousness is not a material thing, ... >> >

Re: for Cosmin

> And what has this to do with consciousness ? > > On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:40:59 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> For me it boils down to that a theory of everything in which all possible >> worlds exist is more plausible than one in which only world does. >>

Re: for Cosmin

For me it boils down to that a theory of everything in which all possible worlds exist is more plausible than one in which only world does. On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:53 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Why are you idealist ? > > -- > You received t

Re: for Cosmin

I'm not claiming to know much about your ideas. I admit to not understanding a lot of it, and I also admit to not caring enough to improve my understanding. Part of the reason I don't care enough is because I've learned to distrust people who say they know the truth of reality. Especially when the

Re: for Cosmin

ows everything. Such logic, > much wow! > > On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 18:01:26 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> When you admit to not knowing how a crucial part of your theory works, >> it's impossible for me to know your theory, because you don't even know it. &

Re: for Cosmin

n when you know you don't know. On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:50 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Then how can you say anything about my theory if you don't know what my > theory is ? > > On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 15

Re: for Cosmin

That's your job, not mine. On Tue, May 7, 2019, 2:00 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I don't even know what you think my theory is. Can you enlighten me ? What > is my theory ? > > On Monday, 6 May 20

Re: for Cosmin

[image: image.png] On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:54 PM Terren Suydam wrote: > You have at best an incomplete theory of how things work, if you don't > know how qualia are generated. Which means, for starters, you can't stand > behind the prediction you made. But more to the point

Re: for Cosmin

ence each moment of our lives that > clearly don't appear as a consequence of life-or-death situation. If you > want to hear the magic words, here they are: I don't know how qualia are > generated. > > On Monday, 6 May 2019 19:37:51 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Your

Re: for Cosmin

There are suggestive studies. My mind is open to the possibility of paranormal phenomena. But it hasn't been proven beyond any reasonable standard of proof. It is certainly not a "given" that telepathy and reincarnation are real. Your turn. Is the theory of general relativity true? I know your an

Re: for Cosmin

Also, I brought up carbon monoxide poisoning a couple weeks ago, and you had nothing to say about creating qualia back then. I suspect you're just making it up as you go. On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:53 AM Terren Suydam wrote: > I know a charlatan when I see one. They tend to make cla

Re: for Cosmin

tan ? > > On Monday, 6 May 2019 18:36:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Givens? You have proof of reincarnation and telepathy? This is news to >> me. Over a thousand people took James Randi's million dollar challenge >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Mill

Re: for Cosmin

they are givens. It is not my fault that you cherry-pick what to > believe in, against all evidence. > > On Sunday, 5 May 2019 18:58:10 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> But reincarnation and telepathy are just givens, to be accepted as real >> with no caveats whatsoever. >

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 3:45 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/5/2019 6:11 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > No doubt, and the cybernetic description of those animals corresponds > nicely to our intuitions abo

Re: for Cosmin

I love how you use scare quotes around the word "science" and constantly remind us that the brain doesn't exist, and you dismiss correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. But reincarnation and telepathy are just givens, to be accepted as real with no caveats whatsoever. On

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

You keep trotting out the term "cybernetic delusion" as if it's a problem. But it's just an assumption I make, that consciousness is identified with cybernetic dynamics. I'm exploring the consequences of that idea, which are compelling IMO. You or anyone else can feel free to adopt or not adopt th

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

with that, but it's far from human consciousness. I think > there are quite a few distinct levels from a thermostat to a flatworm to > spider to a dog to a human. > > Brent > > On 5/4/2019 10:53 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Yes, exactly. There's something it is like

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

on of my > thermostat: There's an element that changes with temperature and makes a > connection below a certain temperature that energizes a source of > heat...and so on. Right? > > Brent > > On 5/4/2019 8:26 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > The cybernetic description of

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

ot of this comes from the site Principia Cybernetica <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DEFAULT.html> which is a pretty expansive treatment of cybernetics. On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 2:55 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/4/201

Re: for Cosmin

So you're counting this anecdote as evidence for your theory? Is this what you mean by evolution, that the author of that story evolved to experience new qualia in the form of a reality-selecting extra-dimensional universe-sized roulette wheel, and it's this evolution that enabled him to survive?

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

viously has nothing to do with *Searle's argument* or your *cybernetic > delusion*. > > @philipthrift > > On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 11:10:33 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Let's say we were visited by aliens and we were able to communicate with >> them s

Re: for Cosmin

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 12:56 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> Regarding the dog, I would never run that specific experiment because >> it's unethical. There are potentially other ways to settle the bet, though. >> If we can generalize your pr

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

n, just an alternative chemistry. What then? Are they zombies? What if after talking to them for a while and attributing consciousness to them based on that, they revealed that they were actually robots constructed by an alien race on their home planet. Zombies? On Sat, May 4, 2019, 11:49 AM Terren Suy

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

;s Chinese Room argument still does apply >> here, as anyone should clearly be able to see. >> >> One can wave the magic word "cybernetic" around all one wants, but it is >> clearly not useful. >> >> There are lots of delusions in the world: Ghosts, spi

Re: for Cosmin

ate new qualia in circumstances in which that qualia would enable them to survive." Do you accept that? On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 10:10 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday, 2 May 2019 15:32:43 UTC+3, Terr

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

make the neurons unhappy.” Even > when they do grow, a group of neurons, however well networked and > organized, do not automatically make a brain. The distance from chemical > sensing to cognition is awfully long, and the slippery nature of even the > idea of cognition complicates this

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

with an artificial replacement does not change the consciousness. On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM Terren Suydam wrote: > What I'm suggesting draws on both functionalism and identity theory. It's > functional in the sense that the constitutive aspect of cybernetics is > entir

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

al properties, as well as physical ones, are attributed to > matter, which is the only basic substance > > so that > > • the material composition of the brain has both physical and psychical > aspects. > > @philipthrift > > > On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 7:3

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> What makes it "your state"? It's just a bunch of programs. Why those >> programs and not others? >> > > It's the set of programs that implements the body/brain used to construct > my

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

me. > > > @philipthrift > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 5:31:56 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Then you're missing the point of the alternative I've been offering. It's >> not about the *matter itself*, it's about the cybernetic dynami

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

consciousness-deniers/ > > @philipthrift > > > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 4:58:04 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Panpsychism of any flavor that identifies matter with a psychic aspect is >> subject to the problems I described earlier. >> >> It never occ

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

d be a group of theoretical psychologists - > there is theoretical physics, chemistry, and biology, but theoretical > psychology is in a much weirder state - who would be involved. > > @philipthrift > > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> &

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

ple for only φ to the considered by > science and for ψ to be ignored by science. > > @philipthrift > > > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> I see them as two sides of the same coin - as in, you don't get one >> without t

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:19 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/3/2019 11:44 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

re are no such things as mathematical objects* > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ > cf. https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathfict/ > > @philipthrift > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 1:55:05 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> You should check out

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

I see them as two sides of the same coin - as in, you don't get one without the other. On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:00 PM wrote: > > > If "consciousness doesn't supervene on physical [or material] computation" > then does that mean there is realm for (A) consciousness and one for (B) > physical [or

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

ories. > > There is no *spiritual/heavenly realm *- as fat as I know - where > software is running. > > Can you show me such a place? Have you seen it? > > @philipthrift > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 9:33:58 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> What happened t

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

; some sense without a physical world, but it would be qualitatively > different. > Yes. However, it's not clear what it would mean for a conscious agent to experience something that wasn't a "physical" world, even if the environment was completely virtual. The Matrix illu

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

; Is it like some ghost out on its own in some immaterial realm? > > > @philipthift > > > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:27:35 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> One way to get around this is to hold that consciousness is associated >> with the way informatio

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

One way to get around this is to hold that consciousness is associated with the way information is processed. This is substrate independent - the fact that a brain is physical is beside the point. You could implement a brain in software, and insofar as the same kinds of information processing occur

Re: for Cosmin

This reveals that you confuse the map with the territory. You don't get to excuse contradictions in your theory by saying, that's just how reality is. If you're saying the only thing exists is consciousness, that's an idea, a map. Then, there are consequences to that idea - as you flesh out your i

Re: for Cosmin

our money where your mouth is. You also never answered my question about where language comes from. > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 23:00:30 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> And then once you assume it, you contradict your statement that only >> consciousness exists. >>

Re: for Cosmin

else than it actually > is, because of the too many details that we have access to. A more purified > view would show us a different view of evolution. And indeed I'm working on > this, on trying to understand what exactly evolution is if you take out the > physical time. > > Makin

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

I would argue for "pancyberpsychism" (I'm no good at naming - is there a name for that already?) which is to say that there it is something it is like to do information processing of any kind. However, the quality of the consciousness involved in that processing is related to its dynamics. So bangi

Re: for Cosmin

gt; wrote: > As I already told you: interactions are not random: they are taking place > in an evolutionary context. > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> I'm saying that it's indistinguishable from one that does. >> > -- &

Re: for Cosmin

ave by default the instinct to kill with > the reasons that those people invoke to make their killing instincts noble. > > Long live the scientific ayan race! > > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Because God's Will is a s

Re: for Cosmin

'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > And if that's how reality is, that God wills it, what is the problem ? > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:45:02 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Exactly: "God wills it". Peace

Re: for Cosmin

Exactly: "God wills it". Peace out homey On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated. > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terre

Re: for Cosmin

is, from phenomenological analysis, you get to the conclusion > that the proper definition for the concept of "existence" is the > looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, therefore existence can only by > ontologically subjective, so consciousness is all there is. > > On

Re: for Cosmin

atement that consciousness is all there > is. > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 01:41:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Who says I believe in a physical world? >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everythin

Re: for Cosmin

Who says I believe in a physical world? On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 6:10 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Then how is the physical world in which you believe manifesting ? > > On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 22:50:08 UTC+3, Terre

Re: for Cosmin

uot; when Husserl showed clearly that > you have extended temporal periods in consciousness outside of the physical > time ? And this is because time in consciousness is not a succession of > moments, but a retentional structure. > > On Monday, 29 April 2019 16:58:23 UTC+3, Terren

Re: for Cosmin

tic concepts, with no > actual meaning whatsoever. Physics is just a fairy-tale that you grew up to > believe in without questioning it. Is pretty much a religion for you. You > have no idea what "gravity" is, but you say: "Ya! Ya! Gravity! Such > concept, much science!&qu

Re: for Cosmin

is able to do. But if you would really pay attention to > my ideas, you would see for example that my ideas are able to explain the > passage of time, a thing that nobody done before, and in principle is a > Nobel prize worth explanation. > > On Sunday, 28 April 2019 23:10:31 UTC+3, Ter

Re: for Cosmin

can answer the following question unambiguously, I'm done. That is, what fact could you discover that would invalidate your ideas? Terren On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 3:24 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, 26

Re: for Cosmin

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 1:39 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, 26 April 2019 20:16:19 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> That's a move that's not available to you - you cannot reference &

Re: for Cosmin

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, 26 April 2019 17:27:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> >> The original question was asking for an explanation of

Re: for Cosmin

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, 26 April 2019 16:14:07 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> >> You really can't see the difference between th

Re: for Cosmin

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:35 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Thanks for reminding me. I didn't see them. > > On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 18:15:41 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at

Re: for Cosmin

Cosmin: do you have any answers to the questions below? On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:15 AM Terren Suydam wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> For this you don't even need i

Re: for Cosmin

e objective facts about our nervous systems that have consequences for subjective experience. We could go through a million examples, including brain damage, drugs, brain tumors, Alzheimers, genetic defects. Should we just throw all those explanatory mechanisms away? > On Tuesday, 23 April 2

for Cosmin

Some people who were born deaf have been given cochlear implants, which give them the ability to hear for the first time . For them, this is new qualia they've never experienced. But it's only possible because of a technical device interfacing with their

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

I don't have an agenda beyond that. Perhaps if I got the sense that his ideas were worth exploring further I'd engage more of my own ideas. On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:14 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2019, at 01:15, Terren Suydam wrote: > > 1) I'm not sure I can

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

How can you assert that access is eliminated when the brain doesn't exist? In order for that to make sense, you're presupposing a role for the brain in one's consciousness. On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > Then why a

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force us to deny the possibility of an objective reality. If nothing else it forces us to

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

ons establish contexts and contexts > give birth to meaning/qualia. This way, God gets to know himself. Is the > only way. > > On Monday, 22 April 2019 15:48:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> So to summarize: >> >>- We lose: causality, determinism, predict

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

? Why should anyone take your theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff? On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:46 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On Monday, 22 April 2019 07:41:14 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

7;d have to understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates reality. 3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right? On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Saturday

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

satisfactory > answers to them, here's how I view the issues raised: > > On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Hey Cosmin, >> >> What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on >> and influences elect

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Hey Cosmin, What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on and influences electrons and presumably other particles? How does that causal link manifest? Some other questions: Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what stops the seemingly inevitably sl

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:13 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:56 AM Terren Suydam > wrote: > >> >> How do you square the multiverse concept with what Bruno has asserted in >> the past - that the physics experienced by universal numbe

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:35 PM Jason Resch wrote: > We have no evidence nor reason to presume that we should be in a position > to see everything that exists. In fact, we already know that not to be the > case. We know we can't see what lays beyond the cosmological horizon, for > example. > >

Re: The most accurate clock ever

Given the Earth has a liquid core, is there any chance that turbulence in the core would move the center of gravity around by some minute amount, but large enough to throw off measurements of such tiny differences? On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: > In yesterday's issue of the j

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

I'm fairly surprised you're not more sympathetic to Bruno's ideas in light of this. What could it mean for a universe to split if the physical is primary? I'm sympathetic to AG's revulsion of the universe splitting into infinite branches. The one thing that makes MWI palatable to me is the idea th

Re: Disclosure Project

> > > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> Speaking for myself (and I'm guessing others) - I could care less. I care >> enough to respond to this, but only because I find this style of >> participation to be annoying

Re: Disclosure Project

Speaking for myself (and I'm guessing others) - I could care less. I care enough to respond to this, but only because I find this style of participation to be annoying as fuck. Nobody is going to take your bait. I'm guessing you know that, so this amounts to a bluff. Put up or shut up. > *But, as

Re: Will computationalism be refuted?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Introspection for the win. >> ​ ​ >> Introspection and theories. Good stuff. >> > > ​In matters of consciousness (but not int

Re: Will computationalism be refuted?

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:16 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > > ​> ​ >> That's a theory, not a fact. >> > > ​A brain is not a theory. > Identifying mind and brain is a theory. > And > I do

Re: Will computationalism be refuted?

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> >>>> ​>>​ >>>> ​ >>>> What's an example of a mind that *is* a system of parts working >>>

Re: Will computationalism be refuted?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:24 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> What's an example of a mind that *is* a system of parts working together? >> > > ​My brain. > I'm a little surprised I need t

Re: Will computationalism be refuted?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 Terren Suydam wrote: > > >> ​>> ​ >>> ​I did not asked for a goddam theory, I asked for an example, an >>> example of a mind that does not involve a system of parts working

Re: Will computationalism be refuted?

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:28 PM, John Clark wrote: > ​I did not asked for a goddam theory, I asked for an example, an example > of a mind that does not involve a system of parts working together. And you > can provide no such example because none exists. > > How do you know? When it comes to minds

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

On Oct 4, 2017 8:36 AM, "Telmo Menezes" wrote: Hi Terren, On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > I would suggest that if the brain was split at birth, the appearance that > there were two persons inhabiting the same body would be harder to avoid. It > woul

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

I would suggest that if the brain was split at birth, the appearance that there were two persons inhabiting the same body would be harder to avoid. It would be like conjoined twins. Due however to the fact that the brain is split in people who've already formed their identity - and assuming that t

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

Oh, don't be so humble. You did good today. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:23 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> There's one stream of consciousness. >> ​ ​ >> And you correctly rea

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

on't thank me though, you did all the work! I'm glad that's over! On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:02 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> Then why can't anybody *ever* tel

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

> > ​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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Every

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

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 4:04 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​Then which *ONE* out of that infinite number is ​ >>> ​"*THE"* >>> stream of consciousness >>> &

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

an one city at the >> same time. >> > > ​I don't know about Mr. You but ​ > Terren Suydam > ​ can ​ > experience more than one city at the same time > ​ if there are ​ > Terren Suydam > ​ duplicating machines. > Objectively, yes. Experientially,

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

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> The expectations of what will happen will change from person to person, >>> but the reality of what actually did h

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

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> So the expectation of anyone who enters a duplicator would be > > > ​The expectations of what will happen will change from person to per

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

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:04 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> In this situation, does the copy that opens his eyes in Barcelona only >> see Barcelona? >> > > ​Obviously.​ > > > &

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

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote: > ​> ​ >> But before we continue, I need to be sure we agree that from your >> first-person perspective, when it comes to making decisions based on some >> future state, you only have the contents of your mind to work with. Your >> mental model,

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

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Then we agree that expectations are important, since the wrong ones can >> kill us. >> > > ​ > Forget important, expectations are no

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

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:54 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​My expectation is after I enter the duplicator >>> ​is ​ >>> I will be in Santa Claus's workshop >>> >

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

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:54 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at Terren Suydam wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Hope you and yours came through the storm ok. >> > > ​Thanks, we're OK, the storm weakened to 90 mph from 180 when it hit us, > that was bad bu

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

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:00 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > No, you said: >> >> True, it's not gibberish. The question is clear, it's about what I expect >>> not what will turn out to be true

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

7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> You admitted earlier that the question is not gibberish when you don't >> know you're being duplicated elsewhere. >> > > ​I admitted not

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

Sep 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> That's identical to the scenario I posited before, where you expect to be >> teleported to Barcelona, but unbeknownst to you, you may also have

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

it's gibberish from the third-person perspective. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:50 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​ > > > ​> ​ >> If I asked you last night where you expect to wake up, that's not

<    1   2   3   4   5   >