Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Brent meeker writes: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > > Peter Jones writes: > > > > > >>> I think it is simpler to go back to your own clones-in-the-next-room > > >>> example > > >>> rather than introducing the complication of neurophysiology (or indeed > > >>> physics). > > >>> You are informed that your current stream of consciousness is either > > >>> being > > >>> generated by > > >>> > > >>> (a) a temporal sequence of clones, each of which lives for a second, > > >>> then is > > >>> instantly killed, and replaced by the next one in the series a > > >>> microsecond later > > >>> > > >>> or > > >>> > > >>> (b) a spatial series of clones, each of which lives for a second, then > > >>> is instantly > > >>> killed, such that the whole experiment goes for a second but uses > > >>> multiple > > >>> adjacent rooms > > >>> > > >>> You have to guess whether you are in experiment (a) or (b). If > > >>> appropriate care > > >>> is taken to provide you with no external clues do you think you would > > >>> be able to > > >>> guess the right answer with greater than 1/2 probability? > > >> It's quite possible that neither scenario can support a > > >> subjective flow of time. > > > > > > Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving > > > against a > > > stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object seems > > > to instantly > > > jump 10 metres in the direction of motion, and then continues as before > > > at 10 m/s. You > > > are informed that one of the following three events has taken place: > > > > > > (a) your consciousness was suspended for 1 second, as in an absence > > > seizure; > > > > > > (b) you were scanned, annihilated, and a perfect copy created in your > > > place 1 second > > > later; > > > > > > (c) nothing unusual happened to you, but the object you were watching was > > > instantly > > > teleported 10 metres in the direction of motion. > > > > > > Would you be able to guess which of the three events took place? > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > Sure, it was (a). (c) violates the laws of physics. (b) might or might > > not be theoretically possible, but it's practically impossible. > > OK, you would probably be right if you were kidnapped and subjected to this > experiment > tomorrow. But it's a thought experiment, and my point is that from your > conscious > experience alone you would be unable to distinguish between the three cases. > Peter Jones' > posts seem to imply that you would notice a difference.
You have to say that, given a particular theory of consciousness, would you notice a difference. If physical counterfactuals/causality is important, you could in cases a) and b), since they all involve an abnormal causal transition from one OM to then next. Given computationalism, it is less straightforward. > Stathis Papaioannou > _________________________________________________________________ > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
