Re: Summary

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:40:31 +1000 (EST)

        I believe you are correct in saying that the difference in
opinion comes down to difference in fundamental assumptions and
terminologies. This LIP I am not familiar with, but it has the right
smell about it. Once I understand it, I will know better whether I
find myself on the opposite camp to Jacques. There appear to be a
number of other assumptions and viewpoints, that could be
philosophically characterised as relativism vs absolutism. The points
where Jacques and I disagree have always had this flavour. I don't
believe that each viewpoint leads to incompatible conclusions, rather,
I believe that Jacques' viewpoint is completely incapable of even discussing
the QTI issue. (as opposed to the more traditional view of immortality
about which it is perfectly capable of discussing).

I wanted to respond to both yours and Jacques' last posts, but have
had little time this week to do that.

                                More later.

> In a message dated 99-09-30 08:52:59 EDT, Bruno Marchal write:
> >> Nevertheless it could help me (us) if you could be a little more explicit
> >> when you say that Jacques Mallah and most of us have a differerent use of
> >> the Leibnitzian identity principle.
> Forgive me Jacques for trying to interpret your point of view (I may be
> wrong), but I think that Jacques insistance on the absolutism of measure, the
> certain loss of measure in case of QS, the absolute compartementalization of
> consciousness within worlds and the unquestionable linkage of a particular
> consciousness to a particular world led me to think that he does not accept
> the Leibnitzian identity principle (LIP?), (He does not pay LIP service :-)
> ) whereas others in our group do.
> I will not at this point pass a value judgment on whether this principle is
> valid or not. I think this is a basic postulate, somewhat akin Euclid's
> parallel postulate, and depending if it is accepted or not, leads to wildly
> different worlds.
> I think that a lot of previous discussion, appeared to be a dialogue of the
> deaf, possibly because the participants have operated from different set of
> underlying assumptions and therefore did not understand, and/or communicate
> with each other. In any case, I brought it in the open so it can become a
> target of discussion to help us identify exactly where we stand. This
> principle, as far as I know, was never mentionned before in this group.
> However, I believe that is plays a crucial role in defining where we stand.
> >> I guess you remember that in my ``pure comp" approach it is important to
> >> distinguish 1-person and 3-person points of view (POV). In particular
> >> there are a lot of situations where the 1-person POVs are
> indistinguishable and
> >> are identified, although they are 3-person-distinguishable. This change
> the
> >> probability of the 1-person experience, but not the nature itself of the
> >> experience.
> Sorry Bruno, I do not remember. There are many discussions I have not been
> able to follow because of my lack of familiarity with some of the concepts,
> lingo and acronyms that this group had already developped before I joined.
> But I partially agree with what you say. You appear to start defending a
> relativistic model (with which I agree) based on perception of the observer,
> but then you say,
> >> This change the probability of the 1-person experience, but not the nature
> itself of >> the experience.
> which implies an objective world independent of observation (with which I
> disagree).
> You continue:
> >>I think I agree with Jacques Mallah on these points, although
> >> I still believe that from his own premisses imortality cannot be avoided
> (so
> >> clearly there is a need to make things clearer).
> If Jacques truly refuses LIP then each consciousness is truly separate from
> its "neighbors" and the loss of any consciousness is irreplaceable. I think
> that there is a failure to communicate, possibly because we have different
> underlying assumptions which so far, have not been spelled out.
> George Levy

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Thu Sep 30 1999 - 20:05:31 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST