Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Beginning of Infinity Discussion

Expand Messages
  • hibbsa
    ... tested in ... debates ... at ... case ... 3rd ... between ... is ... say ... transporter ... information ... could be ... up ... doubler , ... accuracy,
    Message 1 of 55 , Jul 31, 2011
      --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, W.Taylor@... wrote:
      >
      > This is a great load of debate about something that can never be
      tested in
      > our lifetimes, or in our great-great-grandchildren's - but hey - such
      debates
      > are the source of life on the net, neh!?
      >
      > Quoting hibbsa hibbsa@...:
      >
      > > - what you say is also part of the truth, but that doesn't mean that
      > > what I'm saying can be dismissed.
      >
      > Well let's see now.
      >
      > > If I take a photocopy of you and stand
      > > you facing to that copy....you are still the same you. You are not
      > > both...you can only guess what that copy is thinking when he looks
      at
      > > you. Sure, you can guess real good, but that ability to guess will
      > > diverge with time as that copy makes different decisions.
      > >
      > > It's not you. It doesn't matter if you are the copy because in that
      case
      > > the original isn't you. It doesn't matter if there's no way for a
      3rd
      > > party or some turing-esque arrangement to tell the difference
      between
      > > copy and the original, because it isn't about that. It's about, what
      is
      > > it that is you, or me, in terms of inner experience.
      >
      > I understood that in these "thought experiments", or perhaps we should
      say
      > "science fantasies", the conventional agreement was that the
      transporter
      > actually deconstructed one's body completely, squirted the pure
      information
      > through space at the speed of light, and re-constructed your body anew
      > from it at the other end. (Even using different atoms in the process!)
      >
      > Indeed, in a science fantasy just recently proposed here, the info
      could be
      > used to reconstruct people twice or ten times over, and years later.
      > (I suspect that the quantum "no-cloning" theorem would prevent this,
      > but what the heck, in a fantasy thought experimemt you can do
      > more or less whatever you like.)
      >
      > So, the two people who come out of the doubler/transporter, are made
      up
      > of atoms that weren't recently in your (now de-constructed) body.
      > All that is left of you is the "formal cause" of your old self,
      > in new material. But OC both these fantastically accurate copies of
      > your old self have all the same memories etc up to the doubling point,
      > and claim to be you, and regard the other as a pleasant-seeming fellow
      > who might do as a long-lost identical twin, but is "not really" Hibbs.
      >
      > I think this purified fantasy obviates your "photocopy" example,
      > which was never that great anyway.
      >
      > Now of course, there may be *another* machine, not so much a
      "doubler",
      > as a "perfect copier". It scans your body and brain with total
      accuracy,
      > withOUT destroying it in so doing, (again probably impossible in
      principle
      > by no-cloning, but let's blithely ignore these irritating objections),
      > and knocks up a new version of you in the constructing lab.
      >
      > In this example fantasy, I think you want to say that the Hibbs in
      > the scanning lab is the "real you", and the Hibbs in the constructing
      lab
      > is an identical-twin imposter. But is it really different? The
      constructed
      > Hibbs will have all your memories and predilections, and claim to be
      > the real Hibbs, and that the lab administrators must have got them
      mixed up
      > somehow. And once you are out of the lab, and go down in the lift with
      > no-one else in there, and come out having rough-housed several
      positional
      > swap-overs while inside it, *no-one* can ever tell the difference!
      > (I'm assuming no tiny scars or the like were suffered between lab and
      lift.)
      >
      > AND - and this is telling! - if the scanning lab and the
      deconstructing lab
      > looked exactly the same right up to the lift door, then neither would
      either
      > of YOU TWO be able to know for sure which was which! Both of you would
      > still feel sure that he was "the real Hibbs" - in all innocence!
      >
      > The differences between the first example (with the deconstructing
      doubler)
      > and the second example (with the nondestructive scanner) are
      negligible
      > to the point of positivistic equivalence. To insist on a difference is
      > like fiddling with those absurd mathematico-logical "supertasks"
      involving
      > doing infinitely many discrete tasks in a finite time, and trying to
      > deduce something from it. The whole thing is a fantasy, but if
      pressed,
      > as I have done, to its logical conclusion, one sees that the idea of
      > personal identity is impossible in the presence of such machines.
      >
      > Lucky we won't have to bother with this for at least 500 years, then!
      >
      > -- Withering William
      >
      > ** Not only can you never step into the same river twice,
      > ** you are not even the same person stepping in, the second time.
      >
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------
      > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
      >

      Hi Bill - for me the problem is more immediate. I'm left worrying why I
      think I'm mentioning self-evident considerations, yet people I am
      satisfied have more intelligent/highly-developed positions on such
      matters see me misconceived.

      I'm thinking I'm just out of context on something.....haven't adequately
      distinguished the issues being discussed...you agree with what I'm
      saying but what I'm saying is irrelevant in the context.

      I find that explanation more comforting than the alternatives of either
      I am truly plotless, or this is one of the instances that history is
      littered with, where the gifted and talented manage to pickle an avenue
      of thought by ignoring some glaringly self evident truths..... on
      grounds of the truth is not always self evident.

      How about the OO distinction between a class and an instantiation of a
      class.

      You're an instance of your exact biological arrangement. An identical
      you is another instance.

      It's really not that much more sensible to say a copy of you being
      created somewhere else is a good reason for you to be destroyed in the
      transporter, than it is to say that because I exist you can safely die
      in the transporter. I'm not far off identical to you Bill. A few
      differences here and there but we're probably talking 99.x% identical.
      What if the transporter creates your copy with just a moleculres in the
      wrong order...will it still be you? How much is not enough.

      Rgds, al
    • Bruno Marchal
      ... Let us be clear. I agree, I was saying this for those who introduce non Turing emulable telepathic connection, ad absurdum. ... Yes. ... Or like when the
      Message 55 of 55 , Nov 28, 2011
        On 28 Nov 2011, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:

        > On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@...>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > "Like in Everett: the duplicated (or differentiated) subject
        > > does not feel being duplicated. he continues to feel to be
        > viscerally
        > > unique, and that is conformed to the mechanist assumption."
        >
        > True.
        >
        > > "There will be not mysterious telepathic connection between the two
        > > duplicated
        > > person"
        >
        > True.
        >
        > > "making them feeling as one person in two places."
        > >
        >
        > False.
        >

        Let us be clear. I agree, I was saying this for those who introduce
        non Turing emulable telepathic connection, ad absurdum.



        > Both will feel like they are one person in one place, and if the
        > duplicating room is symmetrical there will be 2 brains in that room
        > but
        > only one mind.
        >
        Yes.




        > If you doubt this then perform an experiment, instantly
        > switch the position of the 2 identical people; the people themselves
        > would
        > notice no difference because as I've said the room is symmetrical, a
        > outside observer would notice no difference because as I've said the
        > two
        > people were identical, and the very universe itself would notice no
        > difference. If objectively it makes no difference and subjectively
        > it makes
        > no difference then I think it's safe to conclude it just makes no
        > difference. Of course if there were a change in the environment that
        > made
        > things unsymmetrical or there were a random quantum fluctuation that
        > made
        > the people different then things would be, well, different.
        >
        Or like when the two brains are identical until they interact with
        very different environment, like in the duplication thought experiment.


        >
        > And please please please start trimming quoted material, in long
        > threads
        > and their countless iterations of quotes of quotes of quotes of
        > quotes your
        > posts are becoming increasingly unreadable. If you doubt this then
        > perform
        > an experiment, look at your post that I'm responding to with fresh
        > eyes and
        > ask yourself if potential readers would find the prospect of reading
        > the
        > entire thing inviting. Would you read such a mishmash if it came from
        > somebody else?
        >

        Sometimes it makes sense, especially when going back in a discussion
        after some interruption, and when some points refer to old agreements.
        But I agree, let us not exaggerate. Sorry.


        -- Bruno Marchal


        http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.