On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> My question was "what is the unique consistent definition of "the 1p" >> after the duplication has been performed?". >> > > > In the 3-1 view, that does not exist, > Then "the 1p" is of no use to anyone and neither is "the 3-1 view" whatever the hell that is supposed to be. > There are posts which illustrates that you did understand this. > You're goddamn right! >>> For the guy in W, it is the same definition, but obviously, the content >>> is different. >>> >>>> >>> >> >> So the definition is the same but its different. >> > > > The definition is "content of the diary which go in the box". It is > duplicated. After each copy self-localizes themselves, they write their > unique result and compare with the prediction already written in the diary. > That is a great answer, too bad its not the answer to the question that I asked. My question was "what is the unique consistent definition of "the 1p" after the duplication has been performed?". > The definition of "dog" is the same for the different dogs Medor and > Ralph. > Yes, the definition of "dog" remains the same regardless of what Medor or Ralph write in their diary. > The guy is Helsinki knows, by comp, that he will survive > Well good for "comp". >>If consciousness helps the predator then it must effect behavior and if >> it effects behavior then the Turing Test works for consciousness as well as >> intelligence. >> > > > That does not follow. > Like hell it doesn't! If it changes objective external behavior then the Turing Test can see it and so can Evolution. Please explain how Evolution can select for consciousness, or anything else for that matter, if it makes no change in some objective external attribute. > Consciousness helps the predator in a long range > No! "the long range" is not nearly good enough. Evolution has no foresight, it doesn't understand one step backward 2 steps forward; if a change doesn't provide an immediate advantage to an animal right NOW it will not be selected for regardless of how advantageous that attribute may turn out to be sometime down the road. This is one of the great weaknesses of Evolution and is why designers do a much better job; but until Evolution, after 3 billion years of fumbling, finally got around to making brains it was the only way complex things could get assembled. > the Turing test does not make much sense to me. Some machine can already > pass it relatively to some human, and some human does not succeed in it. > Yes, but what is nonsensical in that? > Zombie can exist in the sense that someday it will be relatively easy to > make a machine imitating perfectly drunk people, or a fanatics or > something. > But why do you believe they'd be zombies? You're not infected with the popular but silly Mr. Spock/Star Trek syndrome are you, the idea that consciousness is harder to achieve than intelligence? >>> Consciousness is needed for making sense of pleasant and unpleasant, >> >> >> >> Evolution has no need of that, >> > > > I cannot make sense of evolution needing something. > Don't be an ass. My iMac needs electricity to work and Evolution needs heredity, mutation, and external objective attributes for natural selection to select for or against for it to work. >> So if animals can nevertheless at least sometimes manage to make sense >> out of things then that ability can only be the byproduct of something else >> that Evolution does care about, like intelligent behavior that lets the >> animals genes get into the next generation. >> > > > Why byproduct? > Because you can't directly detect consciousness in others and neither can Evolution, so the undeniable fact that Evolution nevertheless managed to produce consciousness at least once means that the only logical conclusion is that consciousness is like a spandrel in a cathedral, it's a byproduct. > If consciousness is a byproduct of material activity, then consciousness > AND material activity are a byproduct of addition and multiplication. > Maybe, but to prove it you're going to have to find something analogous to heredity and natural selection in addition and multiplication. And although I personally rather doubt it it's possible that it's the other way round and addition and multiplication are a byproduct of material activity. >>> To get this, though, you need steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. >>> >> >> >> First fix the blunders in the first 3 steps. >> > > > Which blunders. > Which blunders? Oh I don't know, maybe the blunders I've been talking about almost every day for the last 2 years. 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 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.
