Re: crime and duplication machines
On 24 April 2015 at 21:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Brussels-easy. You violated the law against murder there, only to flee to NYC. Like boarding a plane to NYC except quicker. Let us say a child molester, attacks a young child in Brussel's and then teleports to NYC to escape. Whilst in NYC the molester from Brussels molests two other young children before he is captured. At this point should we hear the NYC Molester saying. That was not me! The Brussels molester died whilst in teleporting (by necessity). At this point should a jury even care? It does get fun if 300 versions of Stalin are produced, and only 298 of the clones commit mass murder post teleporting. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 6:15 pm Subject: crime and duplication machines My suspicion is that personal identity is a human concept that is evolved mainly to enforce social norms, and that it only works until technologies like duplication machines or mind uploading are created. To illustrate this, I propose a dilemma: Let's assume I murder someone and then get scanned in Brussels, and reconstructed in Washington. Who should go to jail? What if I am destroyed in Brussels and reconstructed in Washington and Moscow? Copies should be punished only for things they did in their subjective past. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
Brussels-easy. You violated the law against murder there, only to flee to NYC. Like boarding a plane to NYC except quicker. Let us say a child molester, attacks a young child in Brussel's and then teleports to NYC to escape. Whilst in NYC the molester from Brussels molests two other young children before he is captured. At this point should we hear the NYC Molester saying. That was not me! The Brussels molester died whilst in teleporting (by necessity). At this point should a jury even care? It does get fun if 300 versions of Stalin are produced, and only 298 of the clones commit mass murder post teleporting. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 6:15 pm Subject: crime and duplication machines My suspicion is that personal identity is a human concept that is evolved mainly to enforce social norms, and that it only works until technologies like duplication machines or mind uploading are created. To illustrate this, I propose a dilemma: Let's assume I murder someone and then get scanned in Brussels, and reconstructed in Washington. Who should go to jail? What if I am destroyed in Brussels and reconstructed in Washington and Moscow? -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is constantly duplicating quantum states, indeed there are infinite numbers of copies of the entire universe's quantum state waiting to differentiate. -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading On 24 April 2015 at 06:39, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: My sense of things is that if it's not your identity who's is it then? Pattern identity sorts it out. If it looks like you, and it thinks like you, has your attitudes, opinions, belief's, prejudices, likes, dislikes, feels like you, feels like your own tongue in your own mouth...that's you. The question is whether the you who was a biological entity experiences waking up as the uploaded version. If not, then to quote Larry Niven I wouldn't rise in the damn thing (a destructive teleporter, in his case). Tipler claims that is guaranteed if you can duplicate - or, apparently, just simulate - the quantum state of your body (or brain, at least). That is, with no supernatural extras, the laws of physicss (supposedly) guarantee that a duplicated quantum state is indeed you, and you will actually experience waking up as the new version. (Indeed, the MWI also relies on this identity thesis to explain how observers can exist in a branching multiverse - and so does comp, of course.) But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated quantum state is the same as a real one... Pattern identity says the body is the soul and identity. Easy, Peasy. If there are a million of you, with that feeling, and they all go off to have a million different experiences, going forward, then hypothetically, you all can meet at the end of time, so to speak, and all join together (Tipler style) into one totally, cosmic Liz. According to Steinhart, uploading is resurrection, or at least one branch of resurrection. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On 24 April 2015 at 21:03, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. It was never a conundrum. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
Yes, MWI is mind-blasting. Having said that, that despite great difficulty, would in theory, Liz could then be re-constructed with better and better science. In fact, Steinhart proposes that one could upload or teleport, one or more Liz's into different environments' and different universes. Liz could be copied into, say 3, different terrariums and live 3 different lives, for arguments sake. Down the millennia, Liz^5 and Liz^22 could reunite and conjoin at some point. Mind numbing for Liz today? well, me too. Identity over time and place seems a fluid thing, dynamic.However, perhaps Liz at age 3 would view Liz at age 21 as scary and no fun? So, we all might sneer at our future self's beyond the sod. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 7:25 am Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is constantly duplicating quantum states, indeed there are infinite numbers of copies of the entire universe's quantum state waiting to differentiate. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
LizR wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is constantly duplicating quantum states, indeed there are infinite numbers of copies of the entire universe's quantum state waiting to differentiate. Until they differentiate via decoherence, there are no multiple worlds. Bruce -- 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.
Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?
2015-04-24 2:43 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au: LizR wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 09:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/23/2015 1:03 AM, LizR wrote: The discussion was originally about step 3 in the comp argument. Obviously if we've moved onto something else then comp may not be relevant, however, if we are still talking about comp then the question of importance is whether a brain is Turing emulable at any level (which includes whether physics is Turing emulable). If it is, then either the argument goes through, or one of Bruno's other premises is wrong, or there is a mistake in his argument. Well, maybe Bruno can clarify. He always says that physics and consciousness are not computable; they are some kind of sum or average over countably infinite many threads going through a particular state of the UD. So it's not that clear what it means that the brain is Turing emulable in Bruno's theory, even if it is Turing emulable in the materialist theory. That's part of my concern that the environment of the brain, the physics of it is relation to the environment, is what makes it not emulable because its perception/awareness is inherently adapted to the environment by evolution. Bruno tends to dismiss this as a technicality because one can just expand the scope of the emulation to include the environment. But I think that's a flaw. If the scope has to be expanded then all that's proven in step 8 is that, within a simulated environment a simulated consciousness doesn't require any real physics - just simulated physics. But that's almost trivial. I say almost because it may still provide some explanation of consciousness within the simulation. I think you'll find that consciousness isn't computable /if you assume all the consequences of comp/. But once you've assumed all that, you've already had to throw out materialism, including brains, so the question is meaningless. That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is Turing emulable. If you find at the end or your chain of reasoning that consciousness isn't computable (not Turing emulable?), it seems that you might have hit a contradiction. ISTM, that's because you conflate the machinery (iow: the brain or a computer program running on a physical computer) necessary for consciousness to be able to manifest itself relatively to an environment and consciousness itself. Quentin Bruce -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
Re: God
On 23 Apr 2015, at 15:35, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In Short : either you know that you believe or you believe that you know Nice. In any case you can not avoid belief Well said. if you are in the first group, you are being objective, you know your standpoint of ignorance, and you can reason about it. This paradoxically is the most exceptic of the two standpoints. You will be tolerant and compassionate with every other since you know that no one is free from ignorance. and ignorance therefore is the most probable source of evil. More exactly, the evil is the ignorance of ignorance. That is what makes people believing that they know. Ignorance per is not a bad thing, if we are enough aware of it, as it gives the will to explore search, revising theories and opinions, etc. if you are in the second group (the gnostic standpoint), yo are unaware of your ignorance. You are not conscious of your beliefs as beliefs Your own metaphysics is hidden from your rational judgement That is the purest form of faith in his most primitive sense. Since you take your beliefs as knowledge you will consider that every price is worth to pay for the widespread of your truth. since you communicate the truth and other people and they don´t accept it, being so obvious for you, probably you will think that these people are evil, or controlled by some evil persons or gods or social conditions. Exactly. I suppose that I don´t need to explain what are the consequences of that second standpoint. This is the standpoint of scientism, when scientific disciplines that have consequences for human politics are taken as a politic-religious ideology, as knowledge above and beyond belief. We see this today. Financial lobbying has led to the mixing of politics and the medicinal sciences/arts, with the jefferson consequences: some disease can't be cured because cures would mean unemployment and economical problem for those who invested in the fake cure. It is the fundamental same error of mixing or associating religion and state. The problem is not capitalisme here, but the liars, and the absence of real separation between politics and media. Bruno 2015-04-23 0:42 GMT+02:00 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com: Yes, ignorance and fanaticism under any banner, including that of science and reason, will leave a trail of bodies in their wake. But unless you have an alternative to using reason and science to understand the world around and within us (divine revelation?) i don't see your point. Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, when good reasons abound. Also, im not a nominalist. These people like you are the ones that the world must fear Yes! Tremble! Mwhahahahaha! haha, there is nothing fear from me. My hands are tied, since I know harming others is equivalent to harming myself On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Poor nominalists... Ever what you call science and reason has claimed prevalence over religion has been to produce massacres, since 1789 and even before. the religion of the ones that wave the flags of science and reason, that is, thae ones that claim knowledge without conscience that what they have is some kind of faith based on a particular metaphysics. are the most dangerous ones. These people like you are the ones that the world must fear 2015-04-22 22:50 GMT+02:00 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com: I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious belief. People say science cannot kill religion. But I say that science has killed religion countless times, and continues to do so. But religion rises again from its ashes, generally more benign than before. Once we have dispelled illusions, the religion that emerges then will be beautiful. But until that time most instances of religion are things that reason and empiricism must put down to perfect. On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dennis: God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the gaps of understanding ... I don't need to disprove something that has not been proven - or at least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for ignorance. To keep pace with the unfathomable Everything (not the restricted physical topic-content of this list) the flexibility of the human (ignorant) mind requires a 'creator', a 'sustainer' a BOSS like a king for a country. That is called 'GOD'. You may believe (in) it. Know you cannot. So there is no way to disprove. Sometimes 'God' fills the gaps of misunderstanding (ignorance) as well. I don't believe that going back to
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. -Original Message- From: Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 7:57 am Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading On 24 April 2015 at 21:03, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. It was never a conundrum. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com');: On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com'); wrote: For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying. Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person. That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since our reality/nature did succeed to make it; at the very least for me). But if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do, forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is false), then it is a problem even phisophisically (that is if you still want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull) The no clone theorem refers to physical copying, so it isn't relevant if consciousness is due to something else, like an immaterial soul. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','allco...@gmail.com'); a écrit : Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); a écrit : On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','allco...@gmail.com'); wrote: 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com');: On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com'); wrote: For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying. Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person. That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since our reality/nature did succeed to make it; at the very least for me). But if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do, forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is false), then it is a problem even phisophisically (that is if you still want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull) The no clone theorem refers to physical copying, I know. so it isn't relevant if consciousness is due to something else, like an immaterial soul. It is if perfect physical copying is not enough because it misses something. So to try to be clearer, if reality as it is does not give us access to what makes us conscious because whatever it is that makes us conscious is not in any of the physical properties, then even if you were able to make such a perfect physical copy, it would still not be you or even conscious because by definition that perfect copy does not have the conscious property which is not physical and cannot therefore be copied. Yes, so the no clone theorem is not relevant whether consciousness is or is not due to something physical. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com a écrit : Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a écrit : On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying. Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person. That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since our reality/nature did succeed to make it; at the very least for me). But if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do, forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is false), then it is a problem even phisophisically (that is if you still want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull) The no clone theorem refers to physical copying, I know. so it isn't relevant if consciousness is due to something else, like an immaterial soul. It is if perfect physical copying is not enough because it misses something. So to try to be clearer, if reality as it is does not give us access to what makes us conscious because whatever it is that makes us conscious is not in any of the physical properties, then even if you were able to make such a perfect physical copy, it would still not be you or even conscious because by definition that perfect copy does not have the conscious property which is not physical and cannot therefore be copied. Quentin Quentin -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?
On 4/24/2015 3:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-24 22:33 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net: On 4/24/2015 5:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is Turing emulable. If you find at the end or your chain of reasoning that consciousness isn't computable (not Turing emulable?), it seems that you might have hit a contradiction. ISTM, that's because you conflate the machinery (iow: the brain or a computer program running on a physical computer) necessary for consciousness to be able to manifest itself relatively to an environment and consciousness itself. How do we know the two are separable? What is consciousness that can't manifest itself? The environment (the body?) isn't another sentient being that can recognize the consciousness...is it? The thing is, under computationalism hypothesis, there are an infinity of valid implementations of a particular conscious moment, so consciousness itself is superverning on all of them, Does that mean each of them or does it mean the completed infinity of them? And what is a conscious moment? Is it just a state of a Turing machine implementing all these computations, or is it a long sequence of states. assuming the brain is turing emulable, any implementation of it is valid, and there are an infinity of equivalent implementations such as you have to make a distinction of a particular implementation of that conscious moment and the consciousness itself. Why? Is it because the different implementations will diverge after this particular state and will instantiate different conscious states. I don't see how there can be a concept of consciousness itself or a consciousness in this model. Consciousness is just a sequence of states (each which happen to be realized infinitely many times). -- 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.
Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?
2015-04-24 22:33 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 4/24/2015 5:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is Turing emulable. If you find at the end or your chain of reasoning that consciousness isn't computable (not Turing emulable?), it seems that you might have hit a contradiction. ISTM, that's because you conflate the machinery (iow: the brain or a computer program running on a physical computer) necessary for consciousness to be able to manifest itself relatively to an environment and consciousness itself. How do we know the two are separable? What is consciousness that can't manifest itself? The environment (the body?) isn't another sentient being that can recognize the consciousness...is it? The thing is, under computationalism hypothesis, there are an infinity of valid implementations of a particular conscious moment, so consciousness itself is superverning on all of them, assuming the brain is turing emulable, any implementation of it is valid, and there are an infinity of equivalent implementations such as you have to make a distinction of a particular implementation of that conscious moment and the consciousness itself. Quentin Brent -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
Re: God
2015-04-24 14:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: The problem is not capitalisme here, but the liars, and the absence of real separation between politics and media. Indeed. Someones like Paul Feyerabend are also for the separation of State and Science, which is something very urgent now. -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On 4/24/2015 2:25 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 April 2015 at 05:52, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com mailto:do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the clincher. 1. Suppose I erase my body's memories after. Do I go to jail? Unless there is some magic stuff involved in identity, you just committed suicide. How about you commit a crime yesterday then erase your memory of the last year (say) ? Only the 'psychopathic tendencies' argument holds water then, but it would have held equally well a year earlier and wasn't acted on (we assume). And quite aside from pyschopathic tendencies society imposes punishments as deterrent as well as to satisfy sentiments for retribution. Having all your memories erased might be deterrent enough, but just having last year's or yesterday's probably wouldn't. Brent -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying. Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person. That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since our reality/nature did succeed to make it; at the very least for me). But if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do, forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is false), then it is a problem even phisophisically (that is if you still want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull) Quentin -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
2015-04-25 0:29 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying. Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person. Little corrections (there are surely others grammar mistakes and orthographical but anyway) That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since our reality/nature did succeed to make us conscious; at the very least me). But if reality as it is doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do, forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is false), then it is a problem even philosophically (that is if you still want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull) Quentin -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a écrit : On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying. Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person. That's true, unless even in principle what gives rise to consciousness is not duplicable, accessible to us... (It's dubious, since our reality/nature did succeed to make it; at the very least for me). But if reality as it isn doesn't give us access to that (whatever we do, forever, because it is impossible like going faster than the speed of light under relativity, or going before the big bang as the time is beginning with it... and that indeed assumes a theory like computationalism is false), then it is a problem even phisophisically (that is if you still want to follow logic and still want what you're saying to be meaningfull) The no clone theorem refers to physical copying, I know. so it isn't relevant if consciousness is due to something else, like an immaterial soul. It is if perfect physical copying is not enough because it misses something. Quentin -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Origin of mathematics
On 4/24/2015 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote: Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography: I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far. WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM? Why not 2 + 2 = -175,834? or even '1'? (Without changing the game). I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science, physics, etc. etc. Random doesn't mean anything goes, it means not-deterministic. It means exactly the same system may produce different outcomes. And if you try to add two meters to two meters your result may well be 4.123 or 3.999876. So far this has not destroyed technology, science, or physics. Engineers deal with it in every system. Brent 2+2=5 for large values of 2. -- 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.
Re: God
On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:35, meekerdb wrote: On 4/23/2015 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You ask me a definition of God. There are none. God is a term like consciousness, which does not admit direct definition. I use the more general one, on which most people agree: the term God designates the ONE on which we bet as being the creator, or the reason, or the cause, or the explanation of everything. The main attribute of God in the major religions is that He defines good and evil Notably. (which in probably why the concept was invented as a social constraint). But I see no reason to suppose that there is ONE thing or person which is the reason, cause or explanation of everything. Our morals and ethics certainly don't have one cause or reason. Well, that is a very personal matter, and it is amazing you contribute to a list which is based on the faith that a theory of everything is possible (even if incomplete). Metaphysically, you make a very strong statement. If our morals and ethics does not have a cause or reason, not only mechanism is false, but physicalism is false, all religions are false, etc. You might be right, but it is not the kind of hypothesis which can provide motivation for the research. As an assumption, it is a suggestion to abandon research. Then you can compare the religions, all of them, including the monist materialist one (atheist). A muslim can agree that Allah verifies the definition above. An atheist can agree that The material reality plays the role of God, That already assumes that there is such a role. It's not in my play. I am not sure I understand. May be it is out of the topic, but I want say something about the expression theory of everything. What could that be? The expression is born in physics, where a theory of everything would unify the electro-magnetic, the weak force, well all forces known in nature, including gravitation. But what about the force of love, which seems to attract people from opposite gender, or same gender, people? Let us now distinguish the physicist answer and the physicalist (or materialist) answer. The physicist answer can just be: -Oh? Love is out of my topic, I am interested only in quantitative and repeatable measure on numbers and their relation, it looks like with E8, the octonion and a bit of quantum algebra we can unify all those measurable things, with one quite simple equation of the type Epsi=epsi. But love? I'm afraid this is out my scope of study. The physicalist explanation will be. -Oh? Very simple, The quantum void is unstable and turing universal. In its many relative states, some lead to big bangs where space-time exploded, so to speak, with birth and distribution of interacting particles until nearby a star built the heavy atoms leading to planets and the water molecules, chemistry just follows Epsi = epsi, and at the right distance from the Star ... a cycle prey-predators, leads to complex organism, accelerating through genders molecular dialogs, and love is an higher level emergenced of a bio-psychological force making people attracted or repulsed, or making plants forcing the insects to manage the seminal posting. Then the point is that computationalism, the physicalist explanation miss consciousness or make it into an epiphenomenon. That rings not right, but even technically, the choice of Epsi=epsi needs to be justfied in terms of success against all the malin génies which exists in the arithmetical reality (even in the tiny segment that we need to just define the term computable). Computationalism is in the spirit of Darwin: it explains the origin of the physical by a logico-arithmetical, or meta-arithmetical (in the sense of Kleene 1952, or Gödel) gluing of machine's dreams (points of view). God might just be a Universal Dreamer, losing itself in a labyrinth of dreams, in a productive reality (like arithmetical truth). with that definition, as he believes that there is a physical material reality, and that it is the cause or explanation of everything. That general definition helps to be as neutral as possible, when reasoning with the computationalist hypothesis. Another reason to use God, in that sense, is that it helps to remind that the assumption of a primitive physical universe is an assumption. There are evidence for a physical universe, but there are not much evidence for a primary physical universe. This is disingenuous. When someone asks for evidence that arithmetic exists, you just say it one must start from something and you're starting from arithmetic. Or anything Turing equivalent, that is sigma_1 complete. To illustrate I use the combinators. Yes, I need church's thesis to define computable mathematically, and I use Robinson arithmetic, the SK- combinators, and a system of diophantine equations to illustrate different form of the same theory
Re: crime and duplication machines
On 24 Apr 2015, at 13:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 21:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Brussels-easy. You violated the law against murder there, only to flee to NYC. Like boarding a plane to NYC except quicker. Let us say a child molester, attacks a young child in Brussel's and then teleports to NYC to escape. Whilst in NYC the molester from Brussels molests two other young children before he is captured. At this point should we hear the NYC Molester saying. That was not me! The Brussels molester died whilst in teleporting (by necessity). At this point should a jury even care? It does get fun if 300 versions of Stalin are produced, and only 298 of the clones commit mass murder post teleporting. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 6:15 pm Subject: crime and duplication machines My suspicion is that personal identity is a human concept that is evolved mainly to enforce social norms, and that it only works until technologies like duplication machines or mind uploading are created. To illustrate this, I propose a dilemma: Let's assume I murder someone and then get scanned in Brussels, and reconstructed in Washington. Who should go to jail? What if I am destroyed in Brussels and reconstructed in Washington and Moscow? Copies should be punished only for things they did in their subjective past. Yes, and only if there are evidence that they commit it, and it was not a dream. I have a heard about some people claiming to have killed someone, but left free as they did not succeed in providing evidences. Your remark raises the question: can we condemn a person who has killed someone, but is completely amnesic of the fact (according to the nominated experts)? Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: God
On 24 Apr 2015, at 03:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: I think you place far to much importance on Goedelian incompleteness. The existence of unprovable but true theorems like,This sentence is unprovable. is neither interesting nor significant. This hardly gives any deep insight to consciousness. Well said. Physicists, at least, got over the idea that Goedelian incompleteness had any relevance to their search for an understanding of the physical world a long time ago. Wow! You are courageous to make such a prediction in advance. And the whole point of both UDA and AUDA is to show that if computationalism is assumed, then incompleteness has a role in the very birth of the physical reality. Physics per se does not do epistemology, like RA. So Gödel does not really apply to them in the relevant way to get the physics, as a science of (self) prediction, but it applies to the Löbian observers, who believe in induction principles (and sometime in local inductive inference). It is the incompleteness phenomenon which makes the 8 arithmetical hypostases inequivalent, from the machine's points of view: p []p []p p []p t []p t p There are 8, not 5, as three of them split on the G/G* crucial nuances between provability and truth. You can consider it as a toy theology, but why not compare the propositional physics that we get when restricting p to the computable (the sigma_1 proposition). UDA suggests that []p p []p t []p t p Must provide a quantization, to make sense of this classical, perhaps naive, version of comp. The fact is that we do get each time a non-trivial quantization. This makes simple theory like RA (logic + 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x ) Explaining the origin of Matter, Mind and Gods, in a testable way. Of course if your interest relies only in the physical, then forget it. My interest is in the mind body problem, and in the origin of the physical. You need to read some good intriduction to logic and metamathematics. good books are Mendelson, Smullyans Forever undecided, Boolos 1979, at least. Yet, for UDA, you need only, for the step 7, a good passive knowledge of the Church-Turing-Post-Markov theses, if only to understand why the UD is universal and run all computations,, with a big and complex redundancy, and why, in step 8, the UD is run in any semantic of RA. Bruno Bruce -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:19 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: You should both go to jail, on the basis that both copies of you had the same consciousness as the person who committed the murder, and therefore you are both equally responsible (leaving aside considerations of free will etc) I agree. I would be curious to know if anyone disagrees with this, and why. Now, I agree. And Liz gave two good arguments, one pure 3p, and the other is terms of moral punishment. The first one is enough, but the second one make sense too. Another terrible question: do people have the right to torture copies, when they accepted the protocols, that is with consent made at the time before the duplication? Should that be made illegal? (assuming the technology, comp, etc.) Bruno And (this is the clincher) you are both equally a danger to society, having had your psychopathic tendencies duplicated means you're twice as much of a danger as you were when there was only one of you. QED, You're nicked, sunshine. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
Why should quantum states be so hard to identify and describe? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that we cannot know a particles position and velocity at the same time. But nothing prevents us from describing where a particle WAS and how fast it was moving, 2 hours ago, just not right now, at the same time. If we throw away immediacy we have Heisenberg describing the world exactly-in the immediate and maybe the remote past. or whats a david deutsch for? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 09:38 PM Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading div id=AOLMsgPart_2_96bcb4c7-be31-49b9-95f6-9d03855c077a div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On 25 April 2015 at 01:45, Bruce Kellett span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au;bhkell...@optusnet.com.au/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex LizR wrote: span blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a mailto: a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a wrote: How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is constantly duplicating quantum states, indeed there are infinite numbers of copies of the entire universe's quantum state waiting to differentiate. /blockquote /span Until they differentiate via decoherence, there are no multiple worlds. span class=aolmail_HOEnZbfont color=#88/font/span /blockquote /div /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra You mean the MWI doesn't iduplicate/i quantum states? (i.e. after they differentiate, they're different, and beforehand they're identical) ... good point. (Even after decoherence there aren't multiple worlds, just areas that have differentiated within the multiverse, which can't spread FTL). /div /div p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the clincher. 1. Suppose I erase my body's memories after. Do I go to jail? 2. Suppose I erase the memories of this body. I find another body (say a laboratory synthesized one with no memories) and download my memories onto it. Does the new body go to jail? 3. I commit a crime and then a buddy of mine, who had no knowledge of the crime decides he wants to experience my memories. He downloads the entirety of my memories while retaining his own. Does he go to jail? 4. I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download their memories onto my brain, retaining my own. I then delete their memories. Memory transfer technology is at such a stage that it is not possible to transfer or delete selected memories. So it is impossible to remove my memories without removing my victim's. Do I go to jail? 5. I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download my memories onto their brain, without erasing theirs. I then delete my memories. Memory transfer technology is at such a stage that it is not possible to transfer or delete selected memories. So it is impossible to remove my memories without removing my victim's. Does my kidnapped victim go to jail? At first glance, you want to say no to 1, but then someone could just backup their memories, leave themselves a note on where to restore them, and then waltz out of the country. Reminds me a bit of the anime Death Note. You want to say yes to 2, but that seems to entail saying yes to 3-5, and you really don't wanna say yes to 5. Even of you evade that entailment it seems your answers to 3-5 have to be the same. Well, not only is the concept of personal identity, problematic, so is the concept of guilt and free will. If I kill someone and I did it because of the way I was born and the way my environment was it's not my fault, and if I did it due to randomness it's not my fault. So the practical solution to questions of crime and punishment is to do what will deter crime. In particular, people should be deterred from using copying and memory transfer to commit crimes and avoid punishment. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: God
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Someones like Paul Feyerabend are also for the separation of State and Science, which is something very urgent now. I pretty much lost interest in anything Paul Feyerabend thinks is rational and just after he wrote: The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism. Paul Feyerabend is a jackass. 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/d/optout.
Re: God
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: God is a term like consciousness, which does not admit direct definition. But there is a EXCELLENT example of consciousness, me. What is your example of God? Which one? I don't care I'm not picky it's your choice; you can't provide a definition so just give me a example, any example, of God. Einstein wrote many statement about God Yes and here are a few of them: it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it. As you don't want to read Plotinus and Proclus, I'd rather have my teeth drilled. Maybe, or maybe not, nobody knows. Maybe Physics really is fundamental and mathematics is just the best language for describing it. Mathematics kicks back. Physics most certainly kicks back no doubt about it, I'm less certain about mathematics. Language does not. Mathematicians are always saying that mathematics is a language, maybe they're right. I hope you have corrected your confusion between Peano Arithmetic and the Arithmetical Truth. In the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus Honey Boo Boo knows more about Peano Arithmetic than Plotinus ever did. as with comp God emerges from Arithmetical truth Well good for comp. 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/d/optout.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On 25 April 2015 at 05:52, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the clincher. 1. Suppose I erase my body's memories after. Do I go to jail? This one counts as suicide - presumably you are left as a vegetable if you erase your memory. However, if you only erase the memory of committing the crime (plus, say, the events that led up to it) then it's more problematic (!) - not to mention fun for the SF writer. This one still falls into my catch number 2, as mentioned above - you are still a danger to society, and we can prove it! 2. Suppose I erase the memories of this body. I find another body (say a laboratory synthesized one with no memories) and download my memories onto it. Does the new body go to jail? I'd say yes. I'm assuming we aren't worrying about whether jail is the right punishment, whether you have free will, and so on - just judging the situation on its merits within existing laws and assumptions. 3. I commit a crime and then a buddy of mine, who had no knowledge of the crime decides he wants to experience my memories. He downloads the entirety of my memories while retaining his own. Does he go to jail? Not unless having your memories somehow makes him more likely to commit the crime himself, in which case he could in theory fall foul of catch-2 (above). 4. I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download their memories onto my brain, retaining my own. I then delete their memories. Memory transfer technology is at such a stage that it is not possible to transfer or delete selected memories. So it is impossible to remove my memories without removing my victim's. Do I go to jail? For kidnapping and forcibly copying memories and for murdering the original owner of the memories (by deleting them from his original body) - yes. 5. I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download my memories onto their brain, without erasing theirs. I then delete my memories. Memory transfer technology is at such a stage that it is not possible to transfer or delete selected memories. So it is impossible to remove my memories without removing my victim's. Does my kidnapped victim go to jail? No, they aren't responsible for what you did to them. Unless your memories somehow turn them into you (more fun for the SF writer!) At first glance, you want to say no to 1, but then someone could just backup their memories, leave themselves a note on where to restore them, and then waltz out of the country. Reminds me a bit of the anime Death Note. (Not to mention Memento. PKD has a lot to answer for.) You want to say yes to 2, but that seems to entail saying yes to 3-5, and you really don't wanna say yes to 5. Even of you evade that entailment it seems your answers to 3-5 have to be the same -- 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.
Re: Origin of mathematics
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 05:23:38PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 4/24/2015 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote: Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography: I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far. WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM? Why not 2 + 2 = -175,834? or even '1'? (Without changing the game). I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science, physics, etc. etc. Random doesn't mean anything goes, it means not-deterministic. It means exactly the same system may produce different outcomes. And if you try to add two meters to two meters your result may well be 4.123 or 3.999876. So far this has not destroyed technology, science, or physics. Engineers deal with it in every system. Brent 2+2=5 for large values of 2. Exactly. Thanks Brent. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On 25 April 2015 at 01:45, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum. Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is constantly duplicating quantum states, indeed there are infinite numbers of copies of the entire universe's quantum state waiting to differentiate. Until they differentiate via decoherence, there are no multiple worlds. You mean the MWI doesn't *duplicate* quantum states? (i.e. after they differentiate, they're different, and beforehand they're identical) ... good point. (Even after decoherence there aren't multiple worlds, just areas that have differentiated within the multiverse, which can't spread FTL). -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:08:02PM -0700, Dennis Ochei wrote: Where can I sign up to be a part of Cosmic Liz? =p I've wondered if there exists an observer moment with all other observer moments as part of its consistent history. I wonder what God's favorite dream is? I would say no, as the combination of all possible observer moments should feel like nothing (at all). Revisit arguments in ToN, chapter 3. You can feel like something if not all possible observer moments are included, so you will need to give a theory for why that is. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated quantum state is the same as a real one... No-cloning of an unknown quantum state is simply the statement that there is no unitary operator that will enable you to transfer the properties of one unknown quantum state to another. Simulating a quantum state might be another matter. Quantum states are generally described in terms of some basis in Hilbert space. The coefficients of the expansion in that basis are arbitrary complex numbers, subject to the usual normalization conventions for the state. If you want to simulate this state, you have to simulate these coefficients to arbitrary precision. This is not possible in finite time with a digital computer. Not sure I follow you here. Arbitrary precision does not mean infinite precision. If I want my calculation to be accurate to 300 digits, then it can be calculated to 300 digits precision within finite time. If I then want it to 600 digits, I can do that also, but very likely it will 10^300 times as long. However, if an infinite number of calculations are routinely possible for a Turing machine in Platonia, then who knows? I will give my proof that these coefficients are indeed dense in the complex plane at a later time, if required. The set Q x Qi is dense in the complex plane, and each point in that set can be specified precisely to infinite precision. Bruce -- 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. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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.
Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?
On 24 April 2015 at 12:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: I think you'll find that consciousness isn't computable /if you assume all the consequences of comp/. But once you've assumed all that, you've already had to throw out materialism, including brains, so the question is meaningless. That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is Turing emulable. If you find at the end or your chain of reasoning that consciousness isn't computable (not Turing emulable?), it seems that you might have hit a contradiction. I think that's the point. -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On 4/24/2015 7:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Well, not only is the concept of personal identity, problematic, so is the concept of guilt and free will. If I kill someone and I did it because of the way I was born and the way my environment was it's not my fault, and if I did it due to randomness it's not my fault. So the practical solution to questions of crime and punishment is to do what will deter crime. In particular, people should be deterred from using copying and memory transfer to commit crimes and avoid punishment. Right. All the talk about guilt and free will and what God commands and who's responsible are human inventions to control and order societies that grew beyond extended families. Brent -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
Here's the clincher. 1. Suppose I erase my body's memories after. Do I go to jail? 2. Suppose I erase the memories of this body. I find another body (say a laboratory synthesized one with no memories) and download my memories onto it. Does the new body go to jail? 3. I commit a crime and then a buddy of mine, who had no knowledge of the crime decides he wants to experience my memories. He downloads the entirety of my memories while retaining his own. Does he go to jail? 4. I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download their memories onto my brain, retaining my own. I then delete their memories. Memory transfer technology is at such a stage that it is not possible to transfer or delete selected memories. So it is impossible to remove my memories without removing my victim's. Do I go to jail? 5. I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download my memories onto their brain, without erasing theirs. I then delete my memories. Memory transfer technology is at such a stage that it is not possible to transfer or delete selected memories. So it is impossible to remove my memories without removing my victim's. Does my kidnapped victim go to jail? At first glance, you want to say no to 1, but then someone could just backup their memories, leave themselves a note on where to restore them, and then waltz out of the country. Reminds me a bit of the anime Death Note. You want to say yes to 2, but that seems to entail saying yes to 3-5, and you really don't wanna say yes to 5. Even of you evade that entailment it seems your answers to 3-5 have to be the same On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 9:08:23 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Apr 2015, at 13:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 21:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Brussels-easy. You violated the law against murder there, only to flee to NYC. Like boarding a plane to NYC except quicker. Let us say a child molester, attacks a young child in Brussel's and then teleports to NYC to escape. Whilst in NYC the molester from Brussels molests two other young children before he is captured. At this point should we hear the NYC Molester saying. That was not me! The Brussels molester died whilst in teleporting (by necessity). At this point should a jury even care? It does get fun if 300 versions of Stalin are produced, and only 298 of the clones commit mass murder post teleporting. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 6:15 pm Subject: crime and duplication machines My suspicion is that personal identity is a human concept that is evolved mainly to enforce social norms, and that it only works until technologies like duplication machines or mind uploading are created. To illustrate this, I propose a dilemma: Let's assume I murder someone and then get scanned in Brussels, and reconstructed in Washington. Who should go to jail? What if I am destroyed in Brussels and reconstructed in Washington and Moscow? Copies should be punished only for things they did in their subjective past. Yes, and only if there are evidence that they commit it, and it was not a dream. I have a heard about some people claiming to have killed someone, but left free as they did not succeed in providing evidences. Your remark raises the question: can we condemn a person who has killed someone, but is completely amnesic of the fact (according to the nominated experts)? Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
Bruno, if it's a genuine amnesia we do have a quandary (not us but future people) but what if, like the fellow in Matrix 1 said, I want to remember nothing, Noth-thing! in which case this is part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. It reminds me of American comic, Steve Martin, who is past skits advised people to rob banks, but then inform the judge that, I'm sorry, your honor, I didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank. If the Charlie Hebdo murderers were able to teleport from Paris to Baghdad, the secondaries (a term) would need to stand trial. How about 5000 mass murderers produced from a single killer? Go ahead and pick one of us to execute! ha hah! Having 500 replicas running around might make life more difficult. If the replicas are uploaded to an environment/virtual, then its a different story than teleportation. You can isolate unfriendly persons in virch space. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 12:08 pm Subject: Re: crime and duplication machines On 24 Apr 2015, at 13:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 21:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Brussels-easy. You violated the law against murder there, only to flee to NYC. Like boarding a plane to NYC except quicker. Let us say a child molester, attacks a young child in Brussel's and then teleports to NYC to escape. Whilst in NYC the molester from Brussels molests two other young children before he is captured. At this point should we hear the NYC Molester saying. That was not me! The Brussels molester died whilst in teleporting (by necessity). At this point should a jury even care? It does get fun if 300 versions of Stalin are produced, and only 298 of the clones commit mass murder post teleporting. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 6:15 pm Subject: crime and duplication machines My suspicion is that personal identity is a human concept that is evolved mainly to enforce social norms, and that it only works until technologies like duplication machines or mind uploading are created. To illustrate this, I propose a dilemma: Let's assume I murder someone and then get scanned in Brussels, and reconstructed in Washington. Who should go to jail? What if I am destroyed in Brussels and reconstructed in Washington and Moscow? Copies should be punished only for things they did in their subjective past. Yes, and only if there are evidence that they commit it, and it was not a dream. I have a heard about some people claiming to have killed someone, but left free as they did not succeed in providing evidences. Your remark raises the question: can we condemn a person who has killed someone, but is completely amnesic of the fact (according to the nominated experts)? Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no. Philosophically there is no problem with the no clone theorem, since even if a perfect copy is needed to preserve consciousness the no clone theorem does not preclude perfect copying. Practically there is no problem with the no clone theorem since your brain undergoes gross change from moment to moment and you feel that you remain the same person. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 5:55:46 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:19 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: You should both go to jail, on the basis that both copies of you had the same consciousness as the person who committed the murder, and therefore you are both equally responsible (leaving aside considerations of free will etc) I agree. I would be curious to know if anyone disagrees with this, and why. Now, I agree. And Liz gave two good arguments, one pure 3p, and the other is terms of moral punishment. The first one is enough, but the second one make sense too. Another terrible question: do people have the right to torture copies, when they accepted the protocols, that is with consent made at the time before the duplication? Should that be made illegal? (assuming the technology, comp, etc.) Depends on what we mean by the term illegal or jail. If jail or legality turns out to be just some unreflected form of confinement or isolation, then we only replicate our tendency towards another form of vengeance justice. This seems medieval/savage, which is plausible; but what if we assumed they are less savage than us because they've grown bored? Because I'm not sure we need forms of punishment a priori in all scenarios of justice. In such sufficiently advanced setting, where we can e.g. copy Telmo, we can define crime as something like: form of amnesia relative to theological aspects/questions of personhood, then justice is restored when that amnesia is either lifted or the person decides to move to a geography where said amnesia can be lived/dreamed by people who choose it theologically; where it can theologically kick back. Unfortunately, this opens up territoriality of geography, which I'd like to not have to do. Ideally, we'd like to lift that amnesia, perhaps. This may be fuzzy, but at least more precise than faith in weirdly justified spans of time for confinement for security of society. I could see it as the job of scientists, mystics, and artists to grapple with this huge problem of how to make amnesic loss of theological question of personhood, accessible to such persons again (who committed crime). I'm not sure the term illegal or crime would still apply in such setting; closer to they forgot stuff/questions. So crime would be closer to restoration of memory and bear on how did we get here in local history? which would give clues to undo the imbalance and appears more as a memory problem, than a problem with Telmo (sorry for using you like this, man ;-)) Not that I would assume a clear solution (we're attempting good/evil here...); just assuming we can be less naive and hand waving with theology and question of dream/reality than we are today, which is a high price tag. But we could reasonably assume a lot more histories with programming virtual worlds, altered states of mind, theological practice and nuance, technological tools, engineering and management of trance/ecstasy, maybe some advance on problem of evil etc. I try to exercise setting up such scenario's fictionally, but it is difficult to find ones that are fun, where Goedel does not bite back too much, lol. Thanks for posting/sharing, Telmo. This is more fun than all the usual and yet understandable preaching for physical universe, politics, environment etc. Closer to some of Wei Dai's thoughts and writings as well. PGC -- 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.
Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?
On 4/24/2015 5:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is Turing emulable. If you find at the end or your chain of reasoning that consciousness isn't computable (not Turing emulable?), it seems that you might have hit a contradiction. ISTM, that's because you conflate the machinery (iow: the brain or a computer program running on a physical computer) necessary for consciousness to be able to manifest itself relatively to an environment and consciousness itself. How do we know the two are separable? What is consciousness that can't manifest itself? The environment (the body?) isn't another sentient being that can recognize the consciousness...is it? Brent -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On 25 April 2015 at 05:52, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the clincher. 1. Suppose I erase my body's memories after. Do I go to jail? Unless there is some magic stuff involved in identity, you just committed suicide. How about you commit a crime yesterday then erase your memory of the last year (say) ? Only the 'psychopathic tendencies' argument holds water then, but it would have held equally well a year earlier and wasn't acted on (we assume). I may comment on the other points later (if I have anything sensible to saymaybe even if not :-) But for now I have a Jumbo Winter Crossword to set! -- 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.
Re: crime and duplication machines
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Apr 2015, at 13:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 April 2015 at 21:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Brussels-easy. You violated the law against murder there, only to flee to NYC. Like boarding a plane to NYC except quicker. Let us say a child molester, attacks a young child in Brussel's and then teleports to NYC to escape. Whilst in NYC the molester from Brussels molests two other young children before he is captured. At this point should we hear the NYC Molester saying. That was not me! The Brussels molester died whilst in teleporting (by necessity). At this point should a jury even care? It does get fun if 300 versions of Stalin are produced, and only 298 of the clones commit mass murder post teleporting. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 6:15 pm Subject: crime and duplication machines My suspicion is that personal identity is a human concept that is evolved mainly to enforce social norms, and that it only works until technologies like duplication machines or mind uploading are created. To illustrate this, I propose a dilemma: Let's assume I murder someone and then get scanned in Brussels, and reconstructed in Washington. Who should go to jail? What if I am destroyed in Brussels and reconstructed in Washington and Moscow? Copies should be punished only for things they did in their subjective past. Yes, and only if there are evidence that they commit it, and it was not a dream. I have a heard about some people claiming to have killed someone, but left free as they did not succeed in providing evidences. Your remark raises the question: can we condemn a person who has killed someone, but is completely amnesic of the fact (according to the nominated experts)? The question does arise practically, since people sometimes do things when intoxicated that they can't remember. Usually they are still punished, because they chose to become intoxicated. People who are dementing (or have other serious illnesses) may be punished less on compassionate grounds. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: God
On 4/24/2015 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:35, meekerdb wrote: On 4/23/2015 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You ask me a definition of God. There are none. God is a term like consciousness, which does not admit direct definition. I use the more general one, on which most people agree: the term God designates the ONE on which we bet as being the creator, or the reason, or the cause, or the explanation of everything. The main attribute of God in the major religions is that He defines good and evil Notably. (which in probably why the concept was invented as a social constraint). But I see no reason to suppose that there is ONE thing or person which is the reason, cause or explanation of everything. Our morals and ethics certainly don't have one cause or reason. Well, that is a very personal matter, and it is amazing you contribute to a list which is based on the faith that a theory of everything is possible (even if incomplete). Metaphysically, you make a very strong statement. If our morals and ethics does not have a cause or reason, I wrote, ...don't have ONE cause or reason. not only mechanism is false, but physicalism is false, all religions are false, etc. You might be right, but it is not the kind of hypothesis which can provide motivation for the research. As an assumption, it is a suggestion to abandon research. Then you can compare the religions, all of them, including the monist materialist one (atheist). A muslim can agree that Allah verifies the definition above. An atheist can agree that The material reality plays the role of God, That already assumes that there is such a role. It's not in my play. I am not sure I understand. I don't think there's a single cause/source of for all of physical reality, culuture, ethics, art, mathematics, consciousness... There is circumstance and accident at different levels. May be it is out of the topic, but I want say something about the expression theory of everything. What could that be? The expression is born in physics, where a theory of everything would unify the electro-magnetic, the weak force, well all forces known in nature, including gravitation. But what about the force of love, which seems to attract people from opposite gender, or same gender, people? Let us now distinguish the physicist answer and the physicalist (or materialist) answer. The physicist answer can just be: -Oh? Love is out of my topic, I am interested only in quantitative and repeatable measure on numbers and their relation, it looks like with E8, the octonion and a bit of quantum algebra we can unify all those measurable things, with one quite simple equation of the type Epsi=epsi. But love? I'm afraid this is out my scope of study. The physicalist explanation will be. -Oh? Very simple, The quantum void is unstable and turing universal. In its many relative states, some lead to big bangs where space-time exploded, so to speak, with birth and distribution of interacting particles until nearby a star built the heavy atoms leading to planets and the water molecules, chemistry just follows Epsi = epsi, and at the right distance from the Star ... a cycle prey-predators, leads to complex organism, accelerating through genders molecular dialogs, and love is an higher level emergenced of a bio-psychological force making people attracted or repulsed, or making plants forcing the insects to manage the seminal posting. Then the point is that computationalism, So what's the computationalist story. It's my impression that you just assume the computationalist can help himself to the physicalist explanation and then tack on a mystic explanation of consciousness that says an AI is conscious if it can prove Goedel's theorem and apply it to itself. An explanation that tells me nothing about how to make (or avoid making) a conscious AI or how anesthetics affect human consciousness or what it would mean to merge or expand consciousness. the physicalist explanation miss consciousness or make it into an epiphenomenon. That rings not right, Rings not right is mere intuition. The best test of a theory is its predictive power. but even technically, the choice of Epsi=epsi needs to be justfied in terms of success against all the malin génies which exists in the arithmetical reality (even in the tiny segment that we need to just define the term computable). Computationalism is in the spirit of Darwin: it explains the origin of the physical by a logico-arithmetical, or meta-arithmetical (in the sense of Kleene 1952, or Gödel) gluing of machine's dreams (points of view). God might just be a Universal Dreamer, losing itself in a labyrinth of dreams, in a productive reality (like arithmetical truth). Or a parochial dream. with that definition, as he believes that there is a physical material reality, and that it is the cause or explanation of everything. That general
Re: crime and duplication machines
Only temporarily. I leave myself instructions on where to restore my memories On Friday, April 24, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 April 2015 at 05:52, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','do.infinit...@gmail.com'); wrote: Here's the clincher. 1. Suppose I erase my body's memories after. Do I go to jail? Unless there is some magic stuff involved in identity, you just committed suicide. How about you commit a crime yesterday then erase your memory of the last year (say) ? Only the 'psychopathic tendencies' argument holds water then, but it would have held equally well a year earlier and wasn't acted on (we assume). I may comment on the other points later (if I have anything sensible to saymaybe even if not :-) But for now I have a Jumbo Winter Crossword to set! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xrPfkrIWCWw/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com'); . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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. -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- 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.
Re: Origin of mathematics
Liz and Friends of Nearer Geography: I wrote so many times and nobody reflected so far. WHY is 2 + 2 = 4 if there is a VALID concept like RANDOM? Why not 2 + 2 = -175,834? or even '1'? (Without changing the game). I deny random, it would eliminate all our technology, science, physics, etc. etc. My non-IndoEuropean mother tongue has no 'random, we use the translation of the German exbeliebig (~ from what we like??) - well I don't LIKE it, so I have no random? Russell wrote more than a decade ago: 'yes', it seems there should be a 'relative random' - but nothing further from him. Nor anybody else. Randomly yours (no random qgnosticism, however) John Mikes On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:02 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 Apr 2015, at 08:37, meekerdb wrote: 2+2=1 in mod 3 arithmetic. If you change the game you change what can be proven. You can't keep the old version and assume its proofs apply to the new game. But you haven't changed the game. 2+2=4, still, in normal arithmetic, and unless you can change THAT you are still in the same game. (All you've done is to discover that there's more to the game than you originally thought.) I'm a little disappointed. Although I'm of the opinion that maths isn't made up (based on its unreasonable effectiveness in the physical sciences) I still expected a slightly more sophisticated level of argument. If that's the type of argument that supposedly shows maths is made up, it doesn't look like physicists need fear that the mathematical rug they've been relying on for the last 300 years will be pulled out from beneath them anytime soon. -- 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. -- 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.
