RE: Immortality

2001-10-11 Thread Marchal
Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 2:23 a.m. But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a computer would not be conscious. You seem to be discriminating between a

Re: Predictions duplications

2001-10-11 Thread Juho Pennanen
I tried to understand the problem that doctors Schmidhuber and Standish are discussing by describing it in the most concrete terms I could, below. (I admit beforehand I couldn't follow all the details and do not know all the papers and theorems referred to, so this could be irrelevant.)

Re: Predictions duplications

2001-10-11 Thread juergen
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you NEED something additional to explain the ongoing regularity. You need something like the Speed Prior, which greatly favors regular futures over others. I take issue with this statement. In Occam's Razor I show how any

Re: Predictions duplications

2001-10-11 Thread juergen
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you NEED something additional to explain the ongoing regularity. You need something like the Speed Prior, which greatly favors regular futures over others. I take issue with this statement. In Occam's Razor I

RE: Immortality

2001-10-11 Thread Charles Goodwin
Quick reply as usual 'cos I'm at work! :-) But surely the level of substitution would be non-fundamental, i.e. above the level of matter (Whatever that is or isn't) and hence would be a *simulation* of a person? I don't understand how one survives through the substitution (or perhaps I've