On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:19 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> you said mechanism means the belief that "we can survive a digital brain >> transplant operation"; so if there is anything in the universe that >> deserves to be called "certain" it is that because we've already had a >> brain transplant operation, many of them, and we've survived, or at least I >> have. > > > > Yes, but not in a provable communicable way. > Each of us has access to a piece of knowledge that can't be communicated, but that doesn't make it untrue. I have a hunch you are conscious, if my hunch is correct then you know for a fact that mechanism, as you have defined it, is true because you've ALREADY survived many brain transplant operations. > * > A non mechanist can believe that you have become a zombie.* > Sure, he can believe anything he wants, and he can be absolutely positively 100% certain that I an a zombie, but that doesn't mean I'm a zombie. His belief has precisely zero effect on the nature of reality. Being absolutely certain and also dead wrong is not even rare, just look at the 911 hijackers. > > *Of course, we have strong evidence for Mechanism.* > It's far more than just strong evidence, we have rock solid proof for Mechanism as you have defined it, or at least I have. > > *But if we want rigour in metaphysics, nothing should be taken for > granted,* > You may not have it but I have rock solid proof that I am not a zombie, and it's as rigorous as proofs get. It's a pity you can't access that proof too but that's the way it is. >>> if there is a *primitive physical reality* things would be like if 0 = >>> 1. >> >> >> I've asked you many times to explain how you reached that conclusion but >> you've never been able to, so I won't ask again. > > > *> It is proven in all may papers,* > You mean the papers with wall to wall personal pronouns and a personal pronoun duplicating machine but not one clear referent in sight? > > *and I have explained this here. But you need to assess your > understanding of step 3 to proceed. * > I'd need to have brain damage to proceed from step 3. > *I don’t think your refutation of step 3 has been understood by anyone.* > You have repeated that line many times, I suspect it's untrue but I don't care if it is. Anybody who reads step 3 and doesn't think it's dumb is dumb. >> metaphysics hasn't discovered anything new in a thousand years, > > > > *> Mathematics, physics, and mathematical logic are born from > metaphysics/theology. * > And chemistry was born from alchemy, and alchemy hasn't discovered anything new in a thousand years either. You seem to like religion, or at least you give it more respect than it deserves, so I will quote from the Bible, First Corinthians 13:11: "*When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things*." > > *the theology of Aristotle has* [...] > Speaking of childish things, TO HELL WITH ARISTOTLE AND TO HELL WITH THEOLOGY! *> My opponents are typical materialist philosophers, not scientists.* > I suppose working scientists have better things to do with their time than debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or how many computer science textbooks it takes to unscrew a lightbulb. >> If Everett is right there is a 100% probability a version of you will >> wake up tomorrow in the torture dungeon of a sadist and a 100% probability >> a version of you will not. > > *> Wonderful! You just lifted your step three critics on Everett.* > Huh? > *> That is a progress. Let me test your theory,* > It's not my theory it's Everett's, and the only known way to test it is to use David Deutsch's method and that needs an intelligent quantum computer which unfortunatly we don't have yet. > *> Everyone knows that the probabilities in Everett are the same as the > one by Copenhagen. * > If only one of the infinite number of worlds is observable then you'd expect the two interpretations would yield identical results if you don't have access to an advanced Quantum Computer, and we will have to wait a decade or two (maybe less) before we can play around with one of those. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv17dutedoAjZZj0Z6KwbdN%2BvdqXRRt50hM2qYZDoGLwrg%40mail.gmail.com.
