Re: The MGA revisited

Le 28 mars 2015 00:50, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 3/27/2015 3:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 27 mars 2015 23:09, "meekerdb" a écrit : >> > >> > On 3/27/2015 4:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR : >> >>> >> >>> On 27 March 2015 at 23:2

Re: The MGA revisited

On 28 Mar 2015, at 00:50, meekerdb wrote: On 3/27/2015 3:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 27 mars 2015 23:09, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 3/27/2015 4:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR : >>> >>> On 27 March 2015 at 23:24, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Re: The MGA revisited

On 28 Mar 2015, at 08:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/27/2015 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand counterfactual correctness, but I think the concept is misapplied -- even to the extent of making a category error. Counterfactual correctness can be ascribed to a compu

Re: The MGA revisited

On 28 Mar 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Mar 2015, at 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which one of the two, and I can't s

Re: The MGA revisited

On 28 Mar 2015, at 00:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't think even this follows. A computation is a computation -- it gives a definite result for definite inputs. It still counts as a computation even if the same program running

Re: The MGA revisited

meekerdb wrote: On 3/27/2015 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand counterfactual correctness, but I think the concept is misapplied -- even to the extent of making a category error. Counterfactual correctness can be ascribed to a computer/calculator but not to a calculation. A calculat

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 Mar 2015, at 02:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: I simply say, so what! Counterfactual equivalence does not have any independent justification, and it is highly unlike to be sensible, even in the context of computationalis

Re: The MGA revisited

LizR wrote: On 28 March 2015 at 00:56, Bruce Kellett > wrote: An algorithm for generating random numbers is fairly simple -- low complexity. Sorry, I checked with my programmer other half and there is no algorithm for generating random numbers - which

Re: The MGA revisited

On 28 March 2015 at 00:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > An algorithm for generating random numbers is fairly simple -- low > complexity. > Sorry, I checked with my programmer other half and there is no algorithm for generating random numbers - which is unsurprising, because computers are designed to b

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't think even this follows. A computation is a computation -- it gives a definite result for definite inputs. It still counts as a computation even if the same program running on diffe

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Mar 2015, at 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which one of the two, and I can't say that my last remembered moment was run on one

Re: The MGA revisited

meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't think even this follows. A computation is a computation -- it gives a definite result for definite inputs. It still counts as a computation even if the same program running on different inputs would give different results.

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 3:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 27 mars 2015 23:09, "meekerdb" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> a écrit : > > On 3/27/2015 4:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>: >>> >>> On 27 March 2015 at 23:24, Quentin Anciaux

Re: The MGA revisited

Le 27 mars 2015 23:09, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 3/27/2015 4:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR : >>> >>> On 27 March 2015 at 23:24, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR : > > On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 4:53 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 28 March 2015 at 00:06, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: 1- It is assumed you have a machinery/program that is conscious. (a real conscious AI) 2- You have (for example) a conversation with it. 3- While

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 4:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>: On 27 March 2015 at 23:24, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>: On 27 March 2015 at 19:28

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 3:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>: On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical supervenience, not

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 Mar 2015, at 05:13, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR wrote: PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what you're saying. But maybe not. So does contradicition arise because you assume to start with that consciousness

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 Mar 2015, at 12:34, LizR wrote: On 28 March 2015 at 00:06, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 1- It is assumed you have a machinery/program that is conscious. (a real conscious AI) 2- You have (for example) a conversation with it. 3- While doing that conversation, you record all inputs fed to the

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 Mar 2015, at 12:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 28 March 2015 at 00:06, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com >> wrote: 1- It is assumed you have a machinery/program that is conscious. (a real conscious AI) 2- You have (for example) a conversation with it. 3- W

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 Mar 2015, at 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which one of the two, and I can't say that my last remembered moment was run on one or other or my next

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 Mar 2015, at 01:02, PGC wrote: On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:43:04 AM UTC+1, Bruce wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which >> one of the two, and I can't say that m

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 Mar 2015, at 11:24, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR : On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical supervenience, not that it is true. Yes sorry, "reject" was a poor choice of words.

Re: The MGA revisited

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM, LizR wrote: > HmmmI'm not sure where I sit on that. I do feel like some sleight of > hand has been pulled - not intentionally, of course. Perhaps the broken > version might still be conscious, which means that ... eek. That's like > saying Klara's conscious d

Re: The MGA revisited

On Friday, March 27, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 27 March 2015 at 16:54, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> It would take a vast amount of coding "by hand" to create a universe filling in details of miracles occurring at multiple arbitrary points, as >>>

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 22:22, meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Agreed. But the question is more between :are we fundamentally mammals living on earth, or are we universal numbers living in arithmetic, deluded by oracles or other universal numbers. That seems to me t

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 22:13, meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett :

Re: The MGA revisited

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 March 2015 at 16:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: It would take a vast amount of coding "by hand" to create a universe filling in details of miracles occurring at multiple arbitrary points, as opposed to an orderly universe with a few laws and initial conditions. Not

Re: The MGA revisited

LizR wrote: On 28 March 2015 at 00:06, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: 1- It is assumed you have a machinery/program that is conscious. (a real conscious AI) 2- You have (for example) a conversation with it. 3- While doing that conversation, you record all inp

Re: The MGA revisited

On 28 March 2015 at 00:06, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 1- It is assumed you have a machinery/program that is conscious. (a real > conscious AI) > 2- You have (for example) a conversation with it. > 3- While doing that conversation, you record all inputs fed to the machine. > 4- You replay those inpu

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR : > On 27 March 2015 at 23:24, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR : >> >>> On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical supervenience, not that it i

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 23:24, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR : > >> On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical >>> supervenience, not that it is true. >> >> >> Yes sorry, "reject" was a p

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR : > On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical >> supervenience, not that it is true. > > > Yes sorry, "reject" was a poor choice of words. I meant argue from the > comp position ra

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 16:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> It would take a vast amount of coding "by hand" to create a universe >> filling in details of miracles occurring at multiple arbitrary points, as >> opposed to an orderly universe with a few laws and initial conditions. > > > Not necessarily. Jus

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical > supervenience, not that it is true. Yes sorry, "reject" was a poor choice of words. I meant argue from the comp position rather than the materialist one, and know what I

Re: The MGA revisited

Le 27 mars 2015 05:58, "LizR" a écrit : > > On 27 March 2015 at 17:13, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR wrote: >>> >>> PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what you're saying. But maybe not. So ..

Re: The MGA revisited

meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's counterfactually correct if it doesn't

Re: The MGA revisited

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, March 27, 2015, LizR On 27 March 2015 at 01:02, Bruce Kellett Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett This comes back to my original question: since all pos

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 17:35, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: > > On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of > Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably > the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system *know* it's > cou

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 17:13, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR wrote: > >> PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what >> you're saying. But maybe not. So does contradicition arise because you >> assume to start with that consci

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's counterfactually correct if it doesn't actually pass throu

Re: The MGA revisited

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR wrote: > PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what > you're saying. But maybe not. So does contradicition arise because you > assume to start with that consciousness is created by computation, then > show that it would also (a

Re: The MGA revisited

On Friday, March 27, 2015, LizR wrote: > On 27 March 2015 at 01:02, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >> >>> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >>> >>> This comes back to

Re: The MGA revisited

LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's counterfactually correct if it doesn't actually pass through any of the "wha

Re: The MGA revisited

PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what you're saying. But maybe not. So does contradicition arise because you assume to start with that consciousness is created by computation, then show that it would also (assuming physical supervenience) arise from something th

Re: The MGA revisited

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> PGC wrote: >> >> Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or >> sol

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: I simply say, so what! Counterfactual equivalence does not have any independent justification, and it is highly unlike to be sensible, even in the context of computationalism. You

Re: The MGA revisited

Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: PGC wrote: Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or solved by "how somebody feels about it"? It's via contradiction/standard

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: I simply say, so what! Counterfactual equivalence does not have any independent justification, and it is highly unlike to be sensible, even in the context of computationalism. You are quick here. I might explain the strobos

Re: The MGA revisited

Actually I'd like to know where the contradiction is too (and I have read Bruno's papers, and "The Amoeba's Secret", and of course Bruno has done his best to teach me some modal logic...) ...but I still have difficulty following the MGA. It has been explained (at least at times) as showing that "i

Re: The MGA revisited

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > PGC wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or solved by "how >> somebody feels about it"? >> >> It's via contradiction/standard reductio: assume conclusion false and >> negation to be true, and from t

Re: The MGA revisited

PGC wrote: On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:43:04 AM UTC+1, Bruce wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which >> one of the two, and I can't say that my

Re: The MGA revisited

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:43:04 AM UTC+1, Bruce wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> > >> If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which > >> one of the two, and I can't say that my last remembered moment wa

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know which one of the two, and I can't say that my last remembered moment was run on one or other or my next anticipated moment will be run on one or other. If

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 12:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >: This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that c

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Agreed. But the question is more between :are we fundamentally mammals living on earth, or are we universal numbers living in arithmetic, deluded by oracles or other universal numbers. That seems to me to be the same as the question am I a brain in a

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux >: 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >:

Re: The MGA revisited

On 27 March 2015 at 01:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >> >> This comes back to my original question: since all possible >> progra

Re: The MGA revisited

On 25 Mar 2015, at 21:08, meekerdb wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 16:35 GMT+01:00 Stathis Papaioannou : On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : Quent

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Multiple realisation does not undermine physical supervenience... what undermine it, is that you're forced to accept (with the movie graph argument) that the consciousness i

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 13:06, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 13:02 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 12:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>: This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that conscious beings

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 Mar 2015, at 07:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Mar 2015, at 06:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: In fact, I can write computer programs where the laws of physics change from instant to instant. Why do we not ex

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 01:07, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 3:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that one of the possible substrates is inert matter, which seems so absurd that we should conclude the matter plays

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:10:37AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:48:52AM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 04:39, LizR wrote: Apologies "Movie Graph Argument" - from Bruno's 2004 paper I believe. Actually, MGA appears in step 8, but is not explained in the sane04 paper. I only referred to it. The original publication is Marchal, B., "informatique et théorie de l'esprit", A

Re: The MGA revisited

On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" mailto:allco...@gmail.com

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-26 13:02 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >> >> This comes back to my original question: since all possible >> programs >>

Re: The MGA revisited

Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that consc

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-26 12:13 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett > >: >> >> This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs >> are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that conscious b

Re: The MGA revisited

Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >: This comes back to my original question: since all possible programs are run by the dovetailer, how do we ensure that conscious beings see an ordered and predictable world. Only a set

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-26 8:05 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 25 Mar 2015, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> Multiple realisation does not undermine physical supervenience... what >>> undermine it, is that you're forced to accept (with the movie graph >>> argument) that the consci

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2015, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Multiple realisation does not undermine physical supervenience... what undermine it, is that you're forced to accept (with the movie graph argument) that the consciousness is supervening on the movie + broken gate... which

Re: The MGA revisited

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Mar 2015, at 06:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: In fact, I can write computer programs where the laws of physics change from instant to instant. Why do we not experience these things? Aye, there's the rub. Bru

Re: The MGA revisited

On 26 March 2015 at 09:15, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2015-03-25 21:08 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > >> On 3/25/2015 9:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> No, there are as many (same) conscious moments as there are instances >> running in "realtime" on the physical substrate *under physical >> super

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-25 21:08 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 3/25/2015 9:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-03-25 16:35 GMT+01:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : >>> 2015-03-25

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/25/2015 9:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-25 16:35 GMT+01:00 Stathis Papaioannou >: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-03-25 12

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 06:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you take the block universe model seriously then we are nothing more than conscious recordings! Fair point! I don't know what MGA stands for, or what it

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 06:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you take the block universe model seriously then we are nothing more than conscious recordings

Re: The MGA revisited

On 25 Mar 2015, at 12:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Multiple realisation does not undermine physical supervenience... what undermine it, is that you're forced to accept (with the movie graph argument) that the consciousness is supervening on the movie + broken gate... which is absurd, and the

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 Mar 2015, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:31 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you take the block universe model seriously then we are

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-25 16:35 GMT+01:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : >>> Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin

Re: The MGA revisited

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux >: > >> >> >> 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett > >: >> >>> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" >>> >>> allco...@gmail.com >> a écrit : >

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-25 12:25 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" >> allco...@gmail.com>> a écrit : >>> > Le 25 mars 2015 07:23, "meekerdb" >> meeke...@verizon.net>> a écrit : >>> > > On 3/24/

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" > allco...@gmail.com>> a écrit : >> > Le 25 mars 2015 07:23, "meekerdb" > meeke...@verizon.net>> a écrit : >> > > On 3/24/2015 11:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Le 2

Re: The MGA revisited

Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" > a écrit : > Le 25 mars 2015 07:23, "meekerdb" > a écrit : > > On 3/24/2015 11:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> > >> Le 25 mars 2015 05:08, "Russell Standish"

Re: The MGA revisited

Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" a écrit : > > > Le 25 mars 2015 07:23, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > > > > On 3/24/2015 11:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> > >> > >> Le 25 mars 2015 05:08, "Russell Standish" a écrit : > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux

Re: The MGA revisited

Le 25 mars 2015 07:23, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 3/24/2015 11:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 25 mars 2015 05:08, "Russell Standish" a écrit : >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> > > Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, "meekerdb" a écrit : >> > > >> > > W

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/24/2015 11:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 25 mars 2015 05:08, "Russell Standish" > a écrit : > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, "meekerdb" > a écrit : > > > > When re

Re: The MGA revisited

Le 25 mars 2015 05:08, "Russell Standish" a écrit : > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > > > When rerunning the program with the recorded initial input, by hypothesis > > the second run must be as conscious as the

Re: The MGA revisited

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > When rerunning the program with the recorded initial input, by hypothesis > the second run must be as conscious as the first when the inputs came from > the 'real' external world...

Re: The MGA revisited

Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 3/24/2015 2:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : >>> >>> On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb wrote: > > Yes, as I understand it that's the argument. It

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/24/2015 2:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Yes, as I understand it that's the argument. It's consist

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb wrote: > >> Yes, as I understand it that's the argument. It's consistent with >> Platonism. A computer program's execution written out on paper is just as >> much a calculation as

Re: The MGA revisited

LizR wrote: What's wrong with Last Thursdayism? Nothing that I know of. But people tend not to like the idea. 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

Re: The MGA revisited

What's wrong with Last Thursdayism? -- 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

Re: The MGA revisited

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 16:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you take the block universe model seriously then we are nothing mo

Re: The MGA revisited

On 24 March 2015 at 16:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: > meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > If you take the block universe model seriously then we are nothin

Re: The MGA revisited

meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:31 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: Aye, there's the rub. Bruno claims that such capricious sequences of experience must have small measure. But I think the "must" means "so that my theory will hold water." Anyway he admits it's an open problem to

<    1   2   3   4   >