On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:40, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> This is exactly what UDA shows that comp *leads* to a reduction of
the mind body problem into a body problem in arithmetic.
I don't know what "comp"
False. You know what it means.
is or what relevance the Universal Dance Association has to all this
but never mind, what problem in arithmetic explains life the
universe and everything? Is it how much is 6*7 ?
No, it is the comparison between the arithmetical quantization and the
empiric one, which can help to confirms comp (+ classical theory of
knowledge) or refute it.
> We don't need to try to define consciousness,
I agree, examples are far more important than definitions.
> but to agree that consciousness is invariant for some
transformation of the brains,
Yes.
> and this eventually reduce physics to a measure problem
Yes, if a measurement of a brain is made and information on the
position and velocity of atoms is obtained another brain can be made
with generic atoms that will produce a identical consciousness.
Which by the way, illustrates that the conscious experience will not
be able to localize its universal level implementing them, nor even
decide if it is in arithmetic or in another "physical" system.
> You didn't convince any one you refuted the reasoning, given that
each time you provided a counter-example it was shown to confuse
the first and third person views
For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that,
but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on
the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the
first person and the third person.
Then provide the prediction algorithm, and if *you* don't confuse 1p
and 3p, you can see that P = 1/2 is the best prediction available.
Show one better if you can.
> You say that the use of the pronouns is defectuous, but I am the
one insisting to keep clearly the distinction between pronouns
referring to the first person and the third person view (as defined
with the notion of personal diary).
How the hell does a diary help in making a clear distinction? There
are 7 billion first person views on this planet and everybody writes
about "I" in their diary.
The question is addressed to the Helsinki man, and you are right, both
copies will write "I" in the diary. That is the point, and that is the
reason of why both copies will acknowledge their inability to predict
their next 1p experience in self-duplication experiment.
> You are in Helsinki, and by comp you know that you will survive
one and entire in a unique city, and you know you can't know which
one precisely. It will be one, and if you write W, the first person
experience of the one in M will refute it.
That's 6 uses of the personal pronoun "you" in just 50 words, 12%.
And the entire purpose of the sentence was to cast light on the
nature of "you",
It was not.
Your rhetorical handwaving convinces only you, John. Try to convince
someone else. If someone ever understood John C. point, please explain
this to us.
Bruno
but I do admit that a proposition is far easier to prove if the very
proposition can be used as a lemma in the proof itself.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
