> On 23 Sep 2019, at 17:41, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > >> On 22 Sep 2019, at 11:43, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com >> <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get >> > past Step 3. >> >> If Jason Resch reads Carroll's book as John Clark has done then Jason Resch >> will find that Carroll goes into considerable detail explaining what the >> personal pronoun "you" could mean when there are multiple copies of "you". >> And that is something John Clark has done many times on this list, and that >> is something Bruno has never done and is what makes step 3 not just wrong >> but silly. > > On the contrary, each time I have used the nuances (1p, 3p, 1-plural-p) to > explain step 3, all your critics have suppress the nuances, usually using > mockery and semantic play, without any argument understoodd by any on this > list. > > Then, if you think that Carroll’s got it right, you do accept step 3, (as > Carroll accept it, according to Jason) and it is even more weird why you have > not yet move to step 4. > > Of course, we know that you will have a problem with step 7, as you believe > that a computation is ream only off implemented in an assumed physical > reality, but this contradict a century of computer science. > > > > Perhaps it is a manifestation of "buyer's remorse" (he spent $80,000 when he > is already saved by arithmetic).
I am not sure. The saving in arithmetic might be close to the Indian Nirvana idea. Technological immortality is for those who want save their ego, their local memories, and somehow procrastinate the Nirvana, and pursue the Samsara. Saying “yes” ti the doctor is rather vain, if the goal is only to prolongate existence, but it can be sensefull if the goal is being able to see the next soccer cup. > > While he might have a problem with step 7, it appears John Clark does support > arithmetical realism: Clark is like my early opponent. They mocked it quite loudly and publicly before studying the argument, just because they see word like “consciousness” or “reality”, and when they understand there is a reasoning, a theory, means of testing it, they do not want to admit they were wrong. Some people cannot change their mind. It is sad that people open to the MW shows difficulties for the simpler and more obvious (provable) “many-computation” in arithmetic. Now Clark seems also to have some more genuine difficulties in mathematical logic, as he confused theory and models regularly. To his discharge, mathematical logic is poorly taught, when taught. > > John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> 12/26/12 > to everything-list > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com > <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: > > Why do the natural numbers exist? > A better question is do the natural numbers need a reason to exist? I don't > know the answer to that but my hunch is no. > > However he uses the static nature of arithmetical truth to presume that it > cannot represent "real computations". But he has not indicated why > fundamental change (which I take to mean successive creation and destruction > of states) should be necessary to computation, while the indexical eternal > existence of each successive computational state won't do. John's theory that > fundamental change is required leads to an infinity of philosophical zombies > existing within the arithmetical computations, but I think John has also > argued against philosophical zombies. I would like him to answer the > following questions: > > 1. Can the time evolution of John Clark's brain be described by the solutions > to a particular Diophantine equation? (e.g. an equation with variables t and > s, where t = number of Plank times since start of emulation, and s = the wave > function describing all the particles in your skull) > 2. Are those brain states found in the collection of solutions to that > equation reflective of a philosophical zombie? (e.g. could we build a John > Clark robot that behaved exactly as John Clark would by searching for > solutions to this equation, which would not be conscious) I let people guess what John Clark could say, above his taking granted a fundamental primary time (like Prigogine) or a fundamental primary physical universe (like the Aristotelians). Bruno > > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgE67TzrC%2Bx98LG7Fk9%2BZQFnDapXzs%2BDU3v1GP2rbQCcg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgE67TzrC%2Bx98LG7Fk9%2BZQFnDapXzs%2BDU3v1GP2rbQCcg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E8F6A261-96A8-44D9-8C2D-A46B07136794%40ulb.ac.be.
