On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Neither is the original person.
The atoms in your brain came from last year's mashed potatoes, so what does
the original person even mean?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Joihn Clark assumes comp
No, John Clark does not assume comp, and I should know because I am the
world's greatest expert on John Clark.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder how bacteria the world over feel after being replicated, or for
that matter amoeba and other creatures which replicate naturally?
Amoebas reproduce by splitting in half and then growing back to full size;
so which one
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
if when that door is opened one of the collection of atoms arranged in
a johnclarkian way is disrupted instantaneously, or at least too fast to
form a last thought. In that scene from The Prestige one of them DID have a
last
This is covered also in Martine Rothblatt's mind clone conjecture. Conceivably,
let us say in an upload to 3 different VR environments, in which the uploadee
provides the avatars for these 3 places, dies in the process, who is the
closest continuer? To start, they all are, moreover, if they are
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The closest continuer idea is wrong on many counts. Both
copies
On Monday, June 22, 2015, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951
I'd be interested in a more technical analysis, but in my view one clear
weakness at the outset is the lack of a robust motivation to attribute
consciousness to *anything at all* in
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bhkell...@optusnet.com.au'); wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the question, contrary to what you say has been given precisely. We ask
to the 1-you, about
If you has been duplicated there is nothing 1 about it, there is no
such thing as THE 1-you. And who is Bruno Marchal going to ask, the guy
Oh Lawd. Why do people care about making John Clarke see the light? In what
scenario, what preposterous aberrant branch of the multiverse does JC
suddenly admit he was wrong on the basis of logic? It's like trying to
dream up a way to persuade him to punch himself in the face.
On Saturday,
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I diverge from my previous self from moment to moment in ordinary
life,
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If I woke up tomorrow taller because I had a growth spurt during the
night I would still consider that I was me; yet by the closest continuer
theory, I would stop being me if a copy that hadn't grown was made
somewhere
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, June 22, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I diverge from my previous self from moment to moment in
ordinary life, but I still consider that I remain me. If
On 6/22/2015 5:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I diverge from my previous self
John Clark wrote:
After they diverge they will still both identify with the same person,
John Clark, HOWEVER they no longer will identify with each other, and
both would consider their life to be more important than that other
fellow who happened to have the same name. Before they diverged
On 22 June 2015 at 17:05, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 16:35, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
John Clark wrote:
After they diverge they will still both identify with the same
person, John Clark,
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 16:35, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
John Clark wrote:
After they diverge they will still both identify with the same
person, John Clark, HOWEVER they no longer will identify with
each other, and both would
https://micro.cornell.edu/research/epulopiscium/binary-fission-and-other-forms-reproduction-bacteria
I wonder how bacteria the world over feel after being replicated, or for that
matter amoeba and other creatures which replicate naturally?
Samiya
On 22-Jun-2015, at 11:35 am, Bruce Kellett
On 22 June 2015 at 16:35, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
John Clark wrote:
After they diverge they will still both identify with the same person,
John Clark, HOWEVER they no longer will identify with each other, and both
would consider their life to be more important than
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The closest continuer idea is wrong on many counts. Both
copies consider themselves to be the
If there's a tie then it would seem that there is only one person (identity of
indiscernibles). But I think that's impossible for longer that milliseconds, since the
two copies are at different spacetime locations.
Brent
On 6/22/2015 12:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 21 Jun 2015, at 20:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/21/2015 8:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2015 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015
On 21 Jun 2015, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/21/2015 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Z is what the machine can say about the []p t points of view
(like the bet that you will have coffee in the modified step 3
protocol).[]coffee means you get coffee in all consistent
extensions (which in
On 22 Jun 2015, at 06:08, Terren Suydam wrote:
Exactly, and we finally get to the point. Since each johnclarkian
collection of atoms, after they diverge, would have their own unique
first-person point of view, it's trivial to see how this state of
affairs is just like Bruno's duplication
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:05, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 16:35, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The closest continuer idea is wrong on many counts. Both
copies consider themselves to be the original - both are wrong
in your view. But if one copy was 0.1%
On 22 Jun 2015, at 09:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:05, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 16:35, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 22 Jun 2015, at 01:50, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If Bruno Marchal abandoned personal pronouns then Bruno Marchal
would be FORCED to keep those 1-3 person view distinction straight
all along the thought experience,
That does not
On Monday, June 22, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The closest continuer idea is wrong
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 23 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 23 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:
meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I confess that I had never heard of the Closer Continuer Theory until
today, so I typed it into Google and read the first thing that came up.
http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/continuer-theory.html
And my original snap judgement was correct, it is a pretty silly theory.
To be sent to the moon is
John Clark wrote:
I confess that I had never heard of the Closer Continuer Theory until
today, so I typed it into Google and read the first thing that came up.
http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/continuer-theory.html
A quick glance at this indicates that it is not a very good or clear
exposition
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 5:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I diverge from
On 23 June 2015 at 10:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett
On 6/22/2015 8:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 23 June 2015 at 10:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 11:31:26 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 5:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net
javascript:
Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 11:31:26 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
The point is that one should capture as much of the notion of personal
identity that we use everyday as is possible. In particular, it should
take account of those difficult cases where memory is lost or
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jun 2015, at 09:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 17:05, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 16:35, Bruce Kellett
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951
I'd be interested in a more technical analysis, but in my view one clear
weakness at the outset is the lack of a robust motivation to attribute
consciousness to *anything at all* in particular (which, to be fair,
Aaronson acknowledges). ISTM that a
41 matches
Mail list logo
