2009/3/11 Wei Dai :
>
> Jack Mallah wrote:
>> They might not, but I'm sure most would; maybe not exactly that U, but a
>> lot closer to it.
>
> Can you explain why you believe that?
>
>> No. In U = Sum_i M_i Q_i, you sum over all the i's, not just the ones
>> that are similar to you. Of course y
Jack,
You say "Q_i (which is _your_ utility per unit measure for the observer i)."
This is an oxymoron. How can observer i know or care what YOUR Q
(Quality) is? How can this observer feel what it feels being you?. The
only observer that matters in evaluating your Q is you as a
self-observer.
Jack Mallah wrote:
> They might not, but I'm sure most would; maybe not exactly that U, but a
> lot closer to it.
Can you explain why you believe that?
> No. In U = Sum_i M_i Q_i, you sum over all the i's, not just the ones
> that are similar to you. Of course your Q_i (which is _your_ utili
2009/3/9 Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 2009/3/8 Brent Meeker :
>>
>>> And if it went to zero you certainly wouldn't know and wouldn't care.
>>
>> If I died I wouldn't be around to know or care, but I would care in
>> anticipation of dying, since it would radically alter my
2009/3/9 Brent Meeker
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > 2009/3/8 Brent Meeker :
> >
> >> And if it went to zero you certainly wouldn't know and wouldn't care.
> >
> > If I died I wouldn't be around to know or care, but I would care in
> > anticipation of dying, since it would radically alter my
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/3/8 Brent Meeker :
>
>> And if it went to zero you certainly wouldn't know and wouldn't care.
>
> If I died I wouldn't be around to know or care, but I would care in
> anticipation of dying, since it would radically alter my future
> experiences by eliminating t
2009/3/8 Brent Meeker :
> And if it went to zero you certainly wouldn't know and wouldn't care.
If I died I wouldn't be around to know or care, but I would care in
anticipation of dying, since it would radically alter my future
experiences by eliminating them. On the other hand, 1->1 or many->1
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/3/8 Jack Mallah wrote:
>
>> It's not the addition then loss that's bad (since you end up with the same
>> measure you started with); it's the loss.
>>
>> In the culling teleportation, both people are lost, which is doubly bad.
>> Elsewhere, one new person app
2009/3/8 Jack Mallah wrote:
> It's not the addition then loss that's bad (since you end up with the same
> measure you started with); it's the loss.
>
> In the culling teleportation, both people are lost, which is doubly bad.
> Elsewhere, one new person appears, which is good, but not as good
Stathis, Brent,
> There are two copies of me in perfect lockstep, A1 and A2. I'm one of
> these copies and not the other (though I don't know which). Suppose
> I'm A1 and I decide to teleport 100km away. That means A1 disappears
> and a new copy, B, appears 100m away. I'm happy, since I feel I've
--- On Fri, 3/6/09, Wei Dai wrote:
> > No. First, I don't agree that the real question is what the utility
> > function is or should be. The real question is whether the measure, M, is
> > conserved or whether it decreases. It's just that a lot of people don't
> > understand what that mean
2009/3/7 Brent Meeker :
>> I don't agree with the way you calculate utility at all. If I got $5
>> every time I pressed a button which decreased my absolute measure in
>> the multiverse a millionfold I would happily press the button all day.
>
> Which "I"? Aren't you concerned that you would pre
> No. First, I don't agree that the real question is what the utility
> function is or should be. The real question is whether the measure, M, is
> conserved or whether it decreases. It's just that a lot of people don't
> understand what that means.
I agree that a lot of people don't unders
> Which "I"? Aren't you concerned that you would press the button - and vanish?
> Brent
The psychological continuer - the one who remembers having pressed the
button but with +5 dollars on his account.
@Stathis: would you really do this (press the button, also in the
absoute measure scenario
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/3/6 Jack Mallah wrote:
>
>>> If you're not worried about the fair trade, then to be consistent you
>>> shouldn't be worried about the unfair trade either. In the fair trade, one
>>> version of you A disappears overnight, and a new version of you B is
>>> crea
At 07:31 AM 3/6/2009, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>2009/3/6 Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> >> If you're not worried about the fair trade,
> then to be consistent you shouldn't be worried
> about the unfair trade either. In the fair
> trade, one version of you A disappears
> overnight, and a new versio
2009/3/6 Jack Mallah wrote:
>> If you're not worried about the fair trade, then to be consistent you
>> shouldn't be worried about the unfair trade either. In the fair trade, one
>> version of you A disappears overnight, and a new version of you B is created
>> elsewhere in the morning. The u
--- On Tue, 2/24/09, Wei Dai wrote:
> Jack, welcome back.
Hi Wei.
Now that the interesting Consciousness Online web conference is over, it's time
to get back to the this.
http://consciousnessonline.wordpress.com/
BTW, I have to say that the qualia issue remains mysterious to me. It's hard
2009/2/25 Jack Mallah :
> 1) The fair trade
>
> This is the teleportation or Star Trek transporter thought experiment. A
> person is disintegrated, while a physically identical copy is created
> elsewhere.
>
> Even on Star Trek, not everyone was comfortable with doing this. The first
> quest
Jack, Wei Dai,
> machines are invented, there will be a much greater selection pressure
> towards U=M*Q. But given that U=Q is closer to the reality today, I'm not
> sure what good it would do to "taking a stand against QS/QI".
To "translate":
U=M*Q is 3rd person POV (hypothetical; viewed from
Jack, welcome back. I no longer read every post here, but I read this post
and found your positions pretty close to my own. This one, especially, I
totally agree with:
> The important thing to realize is that _definitions don't matter_!
> Predictions, decisions, appropriate emotions to a situa
I noticed someone taking my name in vain. ;) (though experiment where
I, Tom, am a clone of Will Riker) The magic of thought experiments,
it's amazing. I felt my measure decrease, but only after I read the
thought experiment.
I trust this will not derail anyone's personal identity here, but I
--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Well, this seems to be the real point of disagreement between you and the
> pro-QI people. If I am one of the extra versions and die overnight, but the
> original survives, then I have survived. This is why there can be a many to
> one relation
23 matches
Mail list logo
