Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me again. I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is explained in comp as a a persistent relational entity, so I

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Sep 2012, at 17:11, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you exclude space and time, what kind of locality do you refer to?

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/8/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me again. I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is explained in comp as a

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:45, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/8/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me again. I need matter to communicate

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space, Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM,

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-07 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-07 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/7/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space, Even if it

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: But you couldn't realise you felt

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:52:11 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: I find that the least plausible

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You interpret the existence spontaneous neural activity as meaning that something magical like this happens, but it doesn't mean that at all. Spontaneous is just that, spontaneous. It isn't magical. It is quite

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: No, it doesn't mean that at all. If the billion people interact so as to mimic the behaviour of the neurons in a brain, resulting in the ability to (for example) converse in natural language, then the idea is that the

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Roger Clough
- From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-06, 03:06:20 Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You interpret the existence spontaneous neural activity as meaning that something magical like this happens

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Roger Clough
to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 21:12:22 Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Roger Clough
function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-06, 02:18:06 Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Roger Clough
say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 21:21:03 Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I must have missed something. What does the thinking of men have to do with evolution ? The evolution of plantlife ,at least, occurred before men were here. The question is whether philosophical zombies are possible or

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread meekerdb
On 9/5/2012 11:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Intention is not magic and doesn't need hypothetical permission to exist. If your words are random ricochets of quantum radioactive decay or thermodynamic anomalies, then they are meaningless noise. You can't account for them because any accounting

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed,

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree.

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 11:04:53 Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread meekerdb
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space, Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness seems to depend on some particular localized

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 21:36, meekerdb wrote: On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware and wetware are emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be described by numbers or combinators as they describe the same

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 22:24, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote: For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete basis means that

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: snip What is most interesting

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread meekerdb
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that the information content is exactly copyable. Not exactly. Only sufficiently

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:59:55 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get this time, but here

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:06:18 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 12:47 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russel, In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real! But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:48:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: So you think somebody has to be looking at the Moon for it to exist? What is existence other than the capacity to be detected in some way by some thing (itself if nothing else)? What would be the difference between a moon

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that the information content is exactly

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Something about microelectronics and neurology though that blinds us to the chasm between the map and the territory. This kind of example with pencil and paper helps me see how really bizarre it is to expect a conscious experience to arise out of

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To me it only makes sense that we are our whole life, not just the brain cells or functions. The body is a public structural shadow of the private qualitative experience, which is an irreducible (but not incorruptible) gestalt. Bingo! -- Onward!

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: All that matters is that it can exactly carry our the necessary functions. Individual minds are just different versions of one and the same mind! To steal an idea from Deutsch, Other histories are just different universes are just

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Why? If everything is a singular totality on one level, then synchronization is the precondition of time. Time is nothing but perspective-orchestrated de-synchronization. No. Time is an order of sequentially givens. DO not assume per-orderings because

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Yeah, I don't know, any kind of universe-as-machine cosmology seems no better than a theological cosmology. What machine does the machine run on? What meta-arithmetic truths make arithmetic truths true? Maybe it is the act of us being aware of them

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That's the right question to be asking! Errors are sentences that are false in some code. Exactly how does this happen if one's beliefs are predicated on Bp p(is true)? Yeah, it seems to me like we should have to be spraying cybercide

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 2:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:48:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: So you think somebody has to be looking at the Moon for it to exist? What is existence other than the capacity to be detected in some way by some thing (itself if nothing

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:53PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote: It is the meat of the comp assumption, and spelling it out this way makes it very explicit. Either you agree you can be copied (without feeling a

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russel, In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real! That is the entire point of Reality. It is not up to the choice of any one. It is that

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Roger Clough
...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 02:35:23 Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One On Wednesday

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step and the stipulated assumptions of comp.

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:18:07 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is irrelevant to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions: *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I don't like the word existence as it carries so much baggage with it. What you describe below is physical existence. That is a property of extended entities. I agree, existence means different

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions: *yes, doctor*: This is really the

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russel, In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real! That is the entire point of Reality. It is

Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Roger Clough
so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 11:04:53 Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012

Re: Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Roger Clough
-05, 11:07:00 Subject: Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I don't like the word existence as it carries so much baggage with it. What you describe below is physical existence. That is a property of extended entities. I

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread meekerdb
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote: The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on. Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different durations. That is the only test

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread meekerdb
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware and wetware are emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be described by numbers or combinators as they describe the same computations and the same object: you can prove the

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote: For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete basis means that the hardware running the computations is completely

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I would be surprised if I could be fooled by an inorganic body. Has there

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread meekerdb
On 9/5/2012 5:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I would be surprised if I

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote: For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete basis means that the hardware running the

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote: The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on. Ideally this process would be

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote: The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be walked off of their brain one

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence: that evolution would never produce results with some inessential side effect. First, evolution has to produce things by evolving - not starting from a

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote: The test that I would

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 11:26:43 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence: that evolution would never produce results with some inessential

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel nothing, but

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion people talk to each other and give each other information, that some kind of consciousness must necessarily arise as a side-effect. You could say

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion people talk to each other and give each other information,

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread meekerdb
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-05 Thread meekerdb
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion people

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions: *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain function and that your

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions: *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire thought

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step and the stipulated assumptions of comp. I

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain function and that your brain function can be replaced by the functioning

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread meekerdb
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions: *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/4/2012 10:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions: *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread meekerdb
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that the information content is exactly copyable. Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness. This is not qubits that are involved... The

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread meekerdb
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russel, In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real! But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see how well your theory measures up. The

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions: *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire thought

Re: Sane2004 Step One

2012-09-04 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that the information content is exactly copyable. Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness. If