On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/8/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost
me again.
I need matter to communicate w
On 9/8/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me
again.
I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is explained
in comp as a a
On 07 Sep 2012, at 17:11, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
If you exclude space and time, what kind of locality do you refer
to?
T
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me
again.
I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is explained
in comp as a a persistent relational entity, so I don't
On 9/7/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its
local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to
time and space,
Even if it i
On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
w
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, me
On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephe
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote
On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its
local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to
time and space,
Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness se
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
What is most interesting i
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Taking another look at Sane200
On 05 Sep 2012, at 22:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of "this or that", the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that
On 05 Sep 2012, at 21:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware
and wetware are emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can
be described by numbers or combinators as they describe the same
computa
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content,
obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space,
Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness seems to depend on some particular
localized mat
e'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 11:04:53
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish w
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge
to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree.
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed,
On 9/5/2012 11:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Intention is not magic and doesn't need hypothetical permission to exist. If your words
are random ricochets of quantum radioactive decay or thermodynamic anomalies, then they
are meaningless noise. You can't account for them because any accounting you
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> I must have missed something. What does the
> thinking of men have to do with evolution ?
>
> The evolution of plantlife ,at least, occurred before men were here.
The question is whether philosophical zombies are possible or not. If
they are p
would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 21:21:03
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12
verything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 02:18:06
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On T
's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 21:12:22
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Bren
he following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 03:06:20
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> You interpret the existence
>> "spontaneous neural activity" as meaning that some
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> No, it doesn't mean that at all. If the billion people interact so as
>> to mimic the behaviour of the neurons in a brain, resulting in the
>> ability to (for example) converse in natural language, then the idea
>> is that the billion-perso
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> You interpret the existence
>> "spontaneous neural activity" as meaning that something magical like
>> this happens, but it doesn't mean that at all.
>
>
> Spontaneous is just that, spontaneous. It isn't magical. It is quite
> ordinary. I c
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:52:11 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I find that the least plausible expla
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> But you couldn't realise you felt di
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg >
wrote:
> I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
> people talk to each other and give e
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg >
wrote:
>> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
>> responsible for realising were recei
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
> > people talk to each other and give each other information, that some
> kind of
>
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
> >> responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from
> >> the re
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
> people talk to each other and give each other information, that some kind of
> consciousness must necessarily arise as a side-effect. You could say that it
> might ari
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
>> responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from
>> the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel nothing,
>> but maintain the delus
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 11:26:43 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb >
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence:
> that
> > evolution would never produce results with some inessential side effect.
> > Fir
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
> >>
> >> The test that I would use wo
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence: that
> evolution would never produce results with some inessential side effect.
> First, evolution has to produce things by evolving - not starting from a
> clean sheet. In t
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
>>
>> The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone
>> be
>> > walked off of their brain one hemisphere at
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
>
> The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be>
> walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.>
> Ideally this process would be
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >For certain choices of "this or that", the ultimate reality is
> >actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
> >basis means that the hardware running
On 9/5/2012 5:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and
how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I
would be surprised if I could be fooled by an
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and
> how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I
> would be surprised if I could be fooled by an inorganic body. Has there ever
> been one syn
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of "this or that", the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that the hardware running the computations is completely
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware and wetware are
emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be described by numbers or combinators
as they describe the same computations and the same object: you can prove the exis
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
> walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.
> Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different
> durations. That is the only test t
On 9/5/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptio
ing-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 11:07:00
Subject: Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't like the word "existence" as it carries
so much baggage with it. What you describe
below is physical existence. That
God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 11:04:53
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Rus
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot "Choose" what is Real! That is the
entire point of Reality. It i
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
> Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get
> this time, but
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleig
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
>
> I don't like the word "existence" as it carries
> so much baggage with it. What you describe
> below is physical existence. That is a property
> of extended entities.
>
I agree, existence means diffe
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up
the entire
thought
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:18:07 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is
> irrelevant
> >> to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple posts what your
> >>
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge
to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far
I will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step
and the stipulated assumptions of comp.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 02:35:23
Subject: Re:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is irrelevant
>> to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple posts what your
>> position is on how much of your brain function could be replaced by an
>> appropriate machi
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> Hi Russel,
>
> In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
> matter of contingency? You cannot "Choose" what is Real! That is the
> entire point of Reality. It is not up to the choice of any one. It
> is
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:53PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
> > It is the meat of the
> > comp assumption, and spelling it out this way makes it very
> > explicit. Either you agree you can be copied (without feel
On 9/5/2012 2:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:48:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
So you think somebody has to be looking at the Moon for it to exist?
What is existence other than the capacity to be detected in some way
by some thing (itself if nothing else)?
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's the right question to be asking! Errors are sentences that
are false in some code. Exactly how does this happen if one's
beliefs are predicated on Bp & p(is true)?
Yeah, it seems to me like we should have to be spraying cybercide a
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, I don't know, any kind of universe-as-machine cosmology seems no
better than a theological cosmology. What machine does the machine run
on? What meta-arithmetic truths make arithmetic truths true?
Maybe it is the act of us being aware of them that
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why? If everything is a singular totality on one level, then
synchronization is the precondition of time. Time is nothing but
perspective-orchestrated de-synchronization.
No. Time is an order of sequentially givens. DO not assume per-orderings
because
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All that matters is that it can "exactly" carry our the necessary
functions. Individual minds are just different "versions" of one
and the same mind! To steal an idea from Deutsch, Other histories
are just different universes are just di
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it only makes sense that we are our whole life, not just the
brain cells or functions. The body is a public structural shadow of
the private qualitative experience, which is an irreducible (but not
incorruptible) gestalt.
Bingo!
--
Onward!
St
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Something about microelectronics and neurology though that blinds us
to the chasm between the map and the territory. This kind of example
with pencil and paper helps me see how really bizarre it is to expect
a conscious experience to arise out of mecha
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed, assume that the information content is exactly copyable.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:48:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> So you think somebody has to be looking at the Moon for it to exist?
>
>
>
What is existence other than the capacity to be detected in some way by
some thing (itself if nothing else)?
What would be the difference between a
On 9/5/2012 12:47 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot "Choose" what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:06:18 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> > yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
> > thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
> >
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:59:55 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
> Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get
> this time, but he
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently acc
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed,
assume that the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.
If t
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the
entire
thought experi
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of
contingency? You cannot "Choose" what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see how well your
theory measures up. The S
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.
This is not qubits that are involved... The
On 9/4/2012 10:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing b
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
> thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
> function and that your brain function can be replaced by the functioning of
> non-brain devi
On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I
will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step and
the stipulated assumptions of comp. I understa
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
> >
> > *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the
> entire
>
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
>
> *yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
> thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
> function and that y
82 matches
Mail list logo
