On 01 Nov 2013, at 07:04, LizR wrote:
So, has step 3 gone from "that's absurd" to "everyone knows that" ?!
Since more than one or two years, John Clark oscillates between
"obvious non sense" to "obvious, period".
We might hope than in his "obvious, period" phase, he might go to the
next step, but that has never happened.
I don't like that, but I'm afraid that Quentin is right, and that
John's behavior is akin to trolling.
I can hope that he can change his mind, because some people have
already denied the FPI for many years, and then suddenly grasp and
acknowledge the point. This happens when they get the 1/3 pov
distinction (which seems indeed hard for some people, and quite easy
for others).
But usually, people answering with lies and deformation of questions
(like John Clark does all the time) remain stuck in deby, and I think
their agenda is more in a sort of defamation, than in trying to grasp,
or genuinely refute, a statement.
I am not sure it makes sense to answer him anymore, as he uses this to
spread its bad faith, and lies.
Bruno
On 1 November 2013 17:31, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:51 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> A) The test described where the simulation process forks 8 times
and 256 copies are created and they each see a different pattern of
the ball changing color
Duplicating a brain is not enough, the intelligence has NOT forked
until there is something different about them, such as one
remembering seeing a red ball and the other remember seeing a green
ball, only then do they fork. It was the decision made by somebody
or something outside the simulation to make sure all 256 saw a
difference sequence of colored balls that created 256 distinct
minds. And to a simulated physicist a decision made outside the
simulation would be indistinguishable from being random, that is to
say the simulated laws of physics could not be used to figure out
what that decision would be.
> B) A test where the AI is not duplicated but instead a random
number generator (controlled entirely outside the simulation)
determines whether the ball changes to red or blue with 50%
probability 8 times Then the AI (or AIs) could not say whether test
A occurred first or test B occurred first.
Both A and B are identical in that the intelligence doesn't know
what it is going to see next; but increasingly convoluted thought
experiments are not needed to demonstrate that everyday fact. The
only difference is that in A lots of copies are made of the
intelligence and in B they are not; but as the intelligence would
have no way of knowing if a copy had been made of itself or not nor
would it have any way of knowing if it was the original or the copy,
subjectively it doesn't matter if A or B is true.
So yes, subjectively the intelligence would have no way of knowing
if A was true or B, or to put it another way subjectively it would
make no difference.
Thank you for answering. I think we are in agreement.
> I reformulated the UDA in a way that does not use any pronouns at
all, and it doesn't matter if you consider the question from one
view or from all the views, the conclusion is the same.
Yes, the conclusion is the same, and that is the not very profound
conclusion that you never know what you're going to see next, and
Bruno's grand discovery of First Person Indeterminacy is just
regular old dull as dishwater indeterminacy first discovered by Og
the caveman. After the big buildup it's a bit of a letdown actually.
Well there is one difference: the entire protocol is explained to
the AI, it knows exactly what will happen in each of the 256
possibilities, but from inside the simulation, it is no different
than had the sequence of colors been chosen completely randomly.
Also, you are mistaken if you think this is the grand conclusion of
the UDA, it is only one small (but necessary) step in the
reasoning. If you want to get to the grand conclusion you need only
continue on to the next steps. It seems you have grasped the point
of step 3 and are in agreement that subjective indeterminacy can
arise in a fully understood and deterministic process.
I'll re-post the link for your convenience. You are less than 2-3
pages away from finishing reading the UDA: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
Jason
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
