What is wrong? In my opinion, it is that you are thinking that
anything at all exists in addition to or supervening on the
gates, or the movie, or the functions.
I think you have a picture in your mind like this: let's say there
are two side-by-side computers, and let's say the one on the
Not too much here that would raise hackles on the everything-list,
but (IMHO) for the first sentence--
Perhaps it's time I had another go at explaining all that weird
stuff I believe in and why.
The word believe can mean many things but in my parlance it means
to attach a very high
As the observer you know all this information, and you look at the
clock and see that it is 5:00 PM. What can you conclude from this and
what should you expect? To me, it seems that you must conclude that
you are currently either A1 or A2, and that in one minute you will be
B, with 100%
A definitive treatment of this problem is Daniel Dennett's story
Where am I?
http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/WhereAmI.html
On Dec 6, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Mercredi 6 Décembre 2006 19:35, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
...
On Jun 1, 2007, at 6:53 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I assure you, at least one entity in the universe is conscious: me.
If evolution could have made me a zombie, it would have. Therefore,
it seems reasonable to assume that evolution couldn't help but
grant me consciousness as a
You could look up Murmurs in the Cathedral, Daniel Dennett's review
of Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, in the Times literary
supplement (and maybe online somewhere?)
Here's an excerpt from a review of the review:
--
However, Penrose's main thesis, for which all this scientific
Since barring global disaster there will be massively more observers
in the future, why did you find yourself born so early? Surely your
probability of being born in the future (where there are far more
observers) was much much higher than your chances of being born so
early among a far
On Jun 5, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:I would say 0: 0. All a Coincidence (I don't see *big* coincidences) and then 5.I'm agnostic about what you talk about. I love the book by Suzanne Blackmore "In search of the light" because it shows parapsychology can be done seriously, but then
Jesse has it right on here, and one can go even further in this vein. You are impressed by the relationship between one particular story and one particular event - but you hand-picked both the story and the event for discussion here because of their superficial similarities. You challenged me to
On Jun 17, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Hal Finney wrote:
Does it make sense for Jobs to say, who would I have been if that had
happened?
Yes, it makes sense, but only because we know that the phrase Who
would I have been, uttered by Steve Jobs, is just a convenient way
for expressing a
On Jun 17, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:snipI still find it hard to understand this argument. The question "Whatis it like to be a bat?" still has meaning, but is probablyunanswerable (although Dennett, I notice considers it answerable,contra Nagel!)Dennett considers it answerable,
On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Hal Finney wrote:Pete Carlton writes: snip-- we don't need to posit any kind of dualism to paper over it, we just have to revise our concept of "I". Hal Finney wrote:Copies seem a little more problematic. We're pretty cavalier aboutcreating and destroying them in
ink that taking these as primitive leads us into error; in particular the idea that there's a definite answer to the question "what observer moment am I now experiencing?".Best regards Pete Carlton
The discussion about whether it would be okay to use anesthetic that worked only by removing memories is missing one important piece: that the effects of pain are not just floating "experiences" perceived by the "mind", but have very real effects on the body - high stress levels, release of
other words, it is because he extends the "normal" desire of self-preservation to the duplicate, that he would accept certain choices. Whether this is in fact correct is not a scientific question but one for philosophical ethics (and a very interesting one).Pete Carlton
Pete:
I think this interpretation, using I, has an unnecessary
complication to it. What I think Lee is really saying
(in third person terms) is, Person A ought to terminate
person A's life, because person A desires the existence
of (person B + 5 dollars) more strongly than he desires
the
On Jul 4, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:You think that person A ought (in the ethical sense) to have a strong desire for the future existence of person B - no less, in fact, than for the future existence of person A. You imply this when you say the subject is selfish. I see your point,
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is a huge difference in kind between existing and
emulating. Existing is atemporal by definition since existence
can not depend on any other property. Emulations involve some
notion of a process and such are temporal. The
On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:PC:But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary (or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?[SPK] Please notice that the identification of "time" with a "dimension" involves the identification with each moment in
On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:00 AM, Marc Geddes wrote:
Here's a speculation:
The model I'm working with for my theory seems to suggest 3
different fundamental kinds of 'cause and effect'.
The first is physical causality - motion of physical objects
through space.
The second is mental causality
Hi Marc --
it's interesting to wonder about what it would be like to directly
perceive mathematics -- but we also have to acknowledge when we ask
the question, what are the philosophical assumptions we're smuggling
along. For instance, the human brain is not capable of direct
perception
On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:Destroying your species runs counter to evolution. I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves will die out, while those species that don't
On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 03:17 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
Re the latter thought:
Can I suggest reading a pile of Daniel Dennett? The
'representationalist' or its extremum: the eliminativist end of
consciousness is, as are all other philosophical positions as far as I
can tell, both right and
..=)
Best regards,
Pete
--
Pete Carlton, Ph. D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Life Sciences Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Berkeley, CA USA
Hi,
Doesn't this part:
In a materialistic framework, ' I ' am a bunch of atoms. These atoms
happen to constitute a system that has self-referential qualities that
we call consciousness. If it happened that these atoms temporarily
(like in a coma or anesthesy) or permanently (death) lose this
by holistic and unclosable?
--
Pete Carlton
On Feb 3, 2004, at 3:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I am using terms like information loosely when discussing subjective experience precisely because I cannot think of a way to formalise it. Perhaps its defining characteristic is that it cannot be formalised. One can imagine that if we made
On www.edge.org, an exchange between Lee Smolin and Leonard Susskind on
the anthropic principle.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html
Of possible general interest -
J. Ambjørn J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll
(also a writeup in Nature news, at
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-17.html)
Emergence of a 4D World from Causal Quantum Gravity
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.93.131301
I am not quite sure how justification (5) is meant to hang on this
structure. Where does the idea of asking questions come from? Why is
the Nothing supposed to be the kind of thing that should asked
questions in the first place? Why is the fact that Nothing can't
answer a question any more
As usual when I ask a question like this, if the answer is available in
a text on logic or elsewhere, please just tell me where to look.
..I'm also interested in the implicit use of time, or sequence, in many
of the ideas discussed here.
For instance you might say that some of your Somethings
Greetings,
I recently attended a talk here in Berkeley, California given by John
Conway (of 'Game of Life' fame), in which he discussed some of his
results with Simon Kochen, extending the Kochen-Specker paradox. He
presents this as the Free Will Theorem, saying basically that
particles
On Apr 11, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I'm dealing with these questions in an artificial life system - Tierra
to be precise. I have compared the original Tierra code, with one in
which the random no. generator is replaced with a true random
no. generator called HAVEGE, and another
33 matches
Mail list logo
