On 12 May 2015, at 10:55, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 17:36, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:28:16PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> > > On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish
<li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would we assume that it wouldn't make a difference? That
has never
> > > > been made clear.
> > > >
> > > > For the same reason the calculator repeats the same
calculation given
> > the
> > > same starting state and inputs. This is surely inherent in the
nature of
> > > computation? It doesn't matter how large (or small) the
computation is,
> > > it's deterministic (unless the machine breaks down) and should
behave in
> > > exactly the same way on each run.
> >
> > They are different computations, so by comp supervenience, the
quales
> > could be different, or they might not.
> >
> > You mean they are different computations because they occur at
different
> times? Everything else is identical, to start with (in the first
stage of
> the MGA, I mean - we only convert the computation being rerun into a
> recording one step at a time, I think, so before we can get
anywhere we
> have to agree that the first step works, which is just to re-run
the same
> computation using recorded inputs. But so far there doesn't even
seem to be
> agreement on that, unless I've misunderstood.)
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because they do
not behave identically on all counterfactuals.
We may be at cross purposes then. I was talking about rerunning the
computation with recorded inputs, not running a recording of the
computation.
If we're talking about whether a recording of a computation is not
the same computation, then I agree. But now I'm not sure where you
stand on the MGA (well, OK, I am fairly sure, because you've told me
before - but for the purposes of the present discussion, I've got a
bit lost).
Somewhere along the line, someone (Bruce, I think) purported to show
that the MGA doesn't show anything useful, or at least that it
didn't show what Bruno claimed. But now I seem to have lost track of
why that was. I thought we were talking about the first step in the
MGA, which I think is rerunning the computation with the same (or
same lack of) inputs and seeing that it produces the same output
(i.e. the same stream of consciousness). If we agree that it does,
according to physical supervenience, we can then move on to the next
step, which is to begin converting it from a computation into a
recording.
I think. Or maybe I just need to forget this sort of thing and have
a large glass of wine.
In vino veritas! That can work but some plants are much more
efficacious, cheap and non toxic!
;-)
I am a bit lost too. people makes critics on points without seeing if
the critics is relevant. As I want to avoid the 1004 fallacy, I make
precise and rigorous only what is needed to proceed validly. But then
people must go through all the reasoning, before cutting the air for
nothing, I think.
Bruno
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
