Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 19 Mar 2012, at 04:23, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, To add to John Mikes' point, it is being assumed that there is an invariance of consiousness under the copy and paste operations. What is the nature of this continuity? The numerical identity of the copied digital states, and of co

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 18 Mar 2012, at 18:25, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> we can conclude that the Helsinki man will feel he has survived in both cities because HE HAS BEEN DUPLICATED and is now *in both cities*. > But he feels he is in only one city. I HATE PRONOUNS!

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 18 Mar 2012, at 23:45, John Mikes wrote: I think (?) it is Bruno's sentece: "They can perceive the difference, not the duplication" (if not, I apologize, but my remark is still on) I said this, indeed. The difference is the difference between the feeling of being in W, and the feeling of

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: > I didn't pretend there are two points of view in your symmetric room > thought experiment. > Great, then like me you believe that although there are 2 living human bodies and 2 living human brains inside that symmetrical room there is only one h

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 19 Mar 2012, at 00:40, meekerdb wrote: On 3/18/2012 10:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > You seem to continue to oscillate between there is no 1- indeterminacy, because ... 100% for Moscow, and there is an indeterminacy (but it is trivial, nothi

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 19 Mar 2012, at 17:40, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: > I didn't pretend there are two points of view in your symmetric room thought experiment. Great, then like me you believe that although there are 2 living human bodies and 2 living human brai

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/19/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But they now hold different views on where they are, what are the consequences of that? The Helsinki man differentiates into two, the Moscow man and the Washington man; although both are still the Helsinki man, at least in the same way that although you

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > you never address the question asked in the step 3. > I never got beyond step 0, or maybe it was step -1, the idea that 2 identical consciousnesses are not identical. > > You avoid answering the paragraphs of my reply to you, notably with the > movi

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 19 Mar 2012, at 18:32, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > you never address the question asked in the step 3. I never got beyond step 0, or maybe it was step -1, the idea that 2 identical consciousnesses are not identical. Where would I say the contrary? Yo

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 19 Mar 2012, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 3/19/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But they now hold different views on where they are, what are the consequences of that? The Helsinki man differentiates into two, the Moscow man and the Washington man; although both are still the Helsi

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/19/2012 9:40 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > I didn't pretend there are two points of view in your symmetric room thought experiment. Great, then like me you believe that although there are 2 living human bod

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/19/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Mar 2012, at 00:40, meekerdb wrote: On 3/18/2012 10:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > You seem to continue to oscillate between there is no 1-indeterminacy, because .

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 3/18/2012 11:49 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: > >> >> Dear Joseph, >> >> Could you elaborate exactly where this is covered in the COMP >> hypothesis such that it (cont

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mar 19, 3:16 pm, Joseph Knight wrote: > COMP is either true or false. That reduces the question to a mathematical premise to begin with. It's not so simple. Comp can have some truth to it, but not be true. It can lack truth, but without having specifically identifiable false attributes which

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/19/2012 3:16 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 3/18/2012 11:49 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: Dear

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 3/19/2012 3:16 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote: > >> On 3/18/2012 11:49 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King > > wrote: >> >

Re: Theology or not theology (Re: COMP theology)

On 3/19/2012 8:36 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: There are many arguments about how the brain is a classical machine and those are fine but if you examine them they all seem to be narrowly focused on some particular aspect of brain physiology. Max Tegmark's paper focused on ion transport