Re: adult vs. child AB
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/2/12 Brent Meeker : > >> If continuity is fundamental then personal identity could be defined in >> terms of >> it and there could be a real difference between you and someone with the same >> memories, but without continuity to your past. > > But that could lead to absurd conclusions. Suppose you discover that > you have a disease Who has this disease? :-) >which breaks the required continuity every time you > go to sleep, and that this has been happening your whole life. Will > you worry about falling asleep tonight? Should your property be > disposed of tomorrow according to your will? > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
2009/2/12 Brent Meeker : > If continuity is fundamental then personal identity could be defined in terms > of > it and there could be a real difference between you and someone with the same > memories, but without continuity to your past. But that could lead to absurd conclusions. Suppose you discover that you have a disease which breaks the required continuity every time you go to sleep, and that this has been happening your whole life. Will you worry about falling asleep tonight? Should your property be disposed of tomorrow according to your will? -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/2/11 Brent Meeker : > >>> But the same could be said about everyday life. The person who wakes >>> up in my bed tomorrow won't be me, he will be some guy who thinks he's >>> me and shares my memories, personality traits, physical >>> characteristics and so on. In other words, everyone only lives >>> transiently, and continuity of consciousness is an illusion. >> I think I understand your point, but I don't see that the continuity of >> consciousness is any more an illusion than any other continuity: the >> continuity >> of space, the persistence of objects, etc. You are just generalizing Zeno's >> paradox. But once you look at it that way, the question becomes, "Why >> imagine >> the continuity is made up of discrete elements?" It is this >> conceptualization, >> points in space, moments in time, observer moments as atoms of consciousness, >> that creates the paradox. So maybe we should recognize continuity as >> fundamental. The continuity need not be temporal, it could be a more >> abstract >> property such a causal connection or perhaps what Bruno says distinguishes a >> computation from a description of the computation. > > I don't think it makes a difference if life is continuous or discrete: > it is still possible to assert that future versions of myself are > different people who merely experience the illusion of being me. > However, this just becomes a semantic exercise. Saying that I will > wake up in my bed tomorrow is equivalent to saying that someone > sufficiently similar to me will wake up in my bed tomorrow. If continuity is fundamental then personal identity could be defined in terms of it and there could be a real difference between you and someone with the same memories, but without continuity to your past. Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB causation
--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Brent Meeker wrote: > >>> 2) If the data saved to the disk is only based on A1> (e.g. discarding > >>> any errors that A2 might have made) then one could say that A1 is the > >>> same person as B, while A2 is not. This is causal differentiation. > >> > >> Yes, but I'm assuming A1 and A2 have identical content. > > > > That actually doesn't matter - causation is > defined in terms of counterfactuals. If - then, considering > what happens at that moment of saving the data. If x=1 and > y=1, and I copy the contents of x to z, that is not the same > causal relationship as if I had copied y to z. > > Isn't that making the causal chain essential to the experience; contrary to > the idea that the "stream of consciousness" is just the computation? The > causal chain is not part of the computation, A1 and A2 could be implemented > by different physics and hence different causation. --- On Tue, 2/10/09, russell standish wrote: > But surely the counterfactuals are the same in each case too? In which case > it is the same causal relationship. We're talking computations here, each > computation will respond identically to the same counterfactual input. I believe you both are taking what I wrote out of context. Sorry if I was not clear. In the above I was talking about the moment at which the data is saved, from either A1 or A2, when making the transition to B in the thought experiment. BTW, causation (sensitivity to counterfactuals) is part of the criteria for an implementation of a computation. So in that sense causation is essential to the experience. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
2009/2/11 Brent Meeker : >> But the same could be said about everyday life. The person who wakes >> up in my bed tomorrow won't be me, he will be some guy who thinks he's >> me and shares my memories, personality traits, physical >> characteristics and so on. In other words, everyone only lives >> transiently, and continuity of consciousness is an illusion. > > I think I understand your point, but I don't see that the continuity of > consciousness is any more an illusion than any other continuity: the > continuity > of space, the persistence of objects, etc. You are just generalizing Zeno's > paradox. But once you look at it that way, the question becomes, "Why imagine > the continuity is made up of discrete elements?" It is this > conceptualization, > points in space, moments in time, observer moments as atoms of consciousness, > that creates the paradox. So maybe we should recognize continuity as > fundamental. The continuity need not be temporal, it could be a more abstract > property such a causal connection or perhaps what Bruno says distinguishes a > computation from a description of the computation. I don't think it makes a difference if life is continuous or discrete: it is still possible to assert that future versions of myself are different people who merely experience the illusion of being me. However, this just becomes a semantic exercise. Saying that I will wake up in my bed tomorrow is equivalent to saying that someone sufficiently similar to me will wake up in my bed tomorrow. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah : > 3) If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am >>> part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my >>> current experience. This is the most conservative >>> definition and thus may be the least misleading. >>> >>> This is the way I think of it, at least provisionally. >> OK. >> >>> But the point is, I do look at the clock and I do know that I am A, with >>> probability 1, and therefore that I will soon be B with probability 1. >> That contradicts what you said above about being an observer-moment. If you >> are, then some _other_ observer-moments will be in B, not you. > > But the same could be said about everyday life. The person who wakes > up in my bed tomorrow won't be me, he will be some guy who thinks he's > me and shares my memories, personality traits, physical > characteristics and so on. In other words, everyone only lives > transiently, and continuity of consciousness is an illusion. I think I understand your point, but I don't see that the continuity of consciousness is any more an illusion than any other continuity: the continuity of space, the persistence of objects, etc. You are just generalizing Zeno's paradox. But once you look at it that way, the question becomes, "Why imagine the continuity is made up of discrete elements?" It is this conceptualization, points in space, moments in time, observer moments as atoms of consciousness, that creates the paradox. So maybe we should recognize continuity as fundamental. The continuity need not be temporal, it could be a more abstract property such a causal connection or perhaps what Bruno says distinguishes a computation from a description of the computation. Brent >The > question of survival is then the question of how to ensure that this > illusion continues. QI allows the illusion to continue indefinitely. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
2009/2/11 Jack Mallah : >> > 3) If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am >> part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my >> current experience. This is the most conservative >> definition and thus may be the least misleading. >> >> This is the way I think of it, at least provisionally. > > OK. > >> But the point is, I do look at the clock and I do know that I am A, with >> probability 1, and therefore that I will soon be B with probability 1. > > That contradicts what you said above about being an observer-moment. If you > are, then some _other_ observer-moments will be in B, not you. But the same could be said about everyday life. The person who wakes up in my bed tomorrow won't be me, he will be some guy who thinks he's me and shares my memories, personality traits, physical characteristics and so on. In other words, everyone only lives transiently, and continuity of consciousness is an illusion. The question of survival is then the question of how to ensure that this illusion continues. QI allows the illusion to continue indefinitely. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
Jack Mallah wrote: > --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah : >>> 2) If the data saved to the disk is only based on A1 >> (e.g. discarding any errors that A2 might have made) then >> one could say that A1 is the same person as B, while A2 is >> not. This is causal differentiation. >> >> Yes, but I'm assuming A1 and A2 have identical content. > > That actually doesn't matter - causation is defined in terms of > counterfactuals. If - then, considering what happens at that moment of > saving the data. If x=1 and y=1, and I copy the contents of x to z, that is > not the same causal relationship as if I had copied y to z. Isn't that making the causal chain essential to the experience; contrary to the idea that the "stream of consciousness" is just the computation? The causal chain is not part of the computation, A1 and A2 could be implemented by different physics and hence different causation. Brent Meeker > >>> 3) If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am >> part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my >> current experience. This is the most conservative >> definition and thus may be the least misleading. >> >> This is the way I think of it, at least provisionally. > > OK. > >> But the point is, I do look at the clock and I do know that I am A, with >> probability 1, and therefore that I will soon be B with probability 1. > > That contradicts what you said above about being an observer-moment. If you > are, then some _other_ observer-moments will be in B, not you. > > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 07:07:50PM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote: > > That actually doesn't matter - causation is defined in terms of > counterfactuals. If - then, considering what happens at that moment of > saving the data. If x=1 and y=1, and I copy the contents of x to z, that is > not the same causal relationship as if I had copied y to z. > But surely the counterfactuals are the same in each case too? In which case it is the same causal relationship. We're talking computations here, each computation will respond identically to the same counterfactual input. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: adult vs. child AB
--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah : > > 2) If the data saved to the disk is only based on A1 > (e.g. discarding any errors that A2 might have made) then > one could say that A1 is the same person as B, while A2 is > not. This is causal differentiation. > > Yes, but I'm assuming A1 and A2 have identical content. That actually doesn't matter - causation is defined in terms of counterfactuals. If - then, considering what happens at that moment of saving the data. If x=1 and y=1, and I copy the contents of x to z, that is not the same causal relationship as if I had copied y to z. > > 3) If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am > part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my > current experience. This is the most conservative > definition and thus may be the least misleading. > > This is the way I think of it, at least provisionally. OK. > But the point is, I do look at the clock and I do know that I am A, with > probability 1, and therefore that I will soon be B with probability 1. That contradicts what you said above about being an observer-moment. If you are, then some _other_ observer-moments will be in B, not you. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
