On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:58 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *CT might be refuted tomorrow, or in ten thousand years.* > I doubt it. Oracles that can do more than a Turing Machine, such as one that can solve the Halting Problem, produce logical paradoxes. > > *And the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an > analog, continuous process. * > That wouldn't make any difference even if it was true which it almost certainly isn't. Even if a Hydrogen atom has some secret analog process going on inside of it when one atom gets replaced by another atom, that is to say when one analog process gets replaced by another analog process, I *STILL* survive. So that hypothetical secret mysterious analog process is the Hydrogen atom's business not mine, it has nothing to do with me. >> 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. > > > > In which theory? > In the very controversial theory that says if I have observed X then I have observed X. > > *A proof is done in a theory. * > Proof is not the ultimate, direct experience outranks it, and I have direct experience I have survived despite numerous brain transplant operations. > > *What I can show is that Mechanism has to be false in any theory which > commit itself in an ontology richer than RA,* > Then without even reading a word of what you claim to have shown we can immediately conclude that whatever it is you say it MUST be nonsense because we know from direct experience that Mechanism, as you have defined it, is true. *> You have, I think, rock solid evidence, but no evidence at all can prove > anything more than the existence of your consciousness for you. By “proof” > I mean communicable proof to another.* > It doesn't matter if I can communicate my reason for saying yes to the doctor (or yes to being frozen). I have no obligation to justify my actions to you or anybody; based on the evidence I have at my command it is the logical thing to do. >> and it's as rigorous as proofs get. > > > > *If you have it, communicate it to us. * > You first. Prove to me you're conscious. Prove to me you've survived from yesterday to today. If you are unable to communicate proof of your survival to me would you have to conclude that you are dead? > *You confirm that atheists are the ally of the radical christians,* > In the same way that those who suffer from innumeracy are the allies of mathematicians. > >> 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? > > > Y*ou just said that with Everett there is a 100% probability that I > will wake up ..* > Sorry, John Clark doesn't know the Mr. I referred to in the above, what Mr. Clark said was "a version of you". 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/CAJPayv2E_%2BQXZp08HS2_RAqAtc3K9j1PvhNSMwMaGwEWq2y62w%40mail.gmail.com.
