Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

From: John Mikes <>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:16:02 -0400

Gunther wrote:

"...assuming that _every_ computation is conscious qua computation? "
brings up in my mind: thinking in comp (at least: in numbers) translates
'conscious' into 'computed' ??????
(That would imply an elevation from the binary embryonic contraption as our
"computer" into more sophisticated systems, if I dare say: 'analogue'?)
 - - -proposal for vocabulary - - -

John M

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:12 PM, GŁnther Greindl <
> wrote:

> Hi Bruno,
> > 1-OM, (by step 7, correspond to infinity (aleph_zero) of 3-OMs,
> > themselves embedded in bigger infinities (2^aleph_zero) of
> > computations going trough their corresponding states.
> > Between you-in-the-living room, and you-in-the-kitchen there is
> > already a continuum of stories/computations.
> I'm fine up to here.
> > The alien should be able to shut down the universal dovetailer. By
> No, they need not - see below.
> > I think you (momentarily perhaps?) forget the full consequence of the
> > seventh uda step. You, in the next instant, is literally determined by
> > a continuum of computations+oracles executed by the UD. Thanks to
> I am aware of Step 7: but I don't agree that all computations need
> correspond to a continuation of an OM.
> You agree that some "continuations" can actually be a non-continuation,
> don't you? For instance, in Quantum suicide, there are versions of you
> which die (visibly for other observers) - so there are "continuations"
> of your state which code your termination.
> I do not see following from UDA that all computational continuations
> need correspond to OMs. For instance, in step 1 we say "yes doctor", but
> we don't say yes to every doctor, for instance to the one arriving with
> some cogwheels -> "no doctor" ;-)
> So, what I am saying is that maybe in some cases (cul de sac) _all_
> (2^aleph_zero) continuations actually code for termination (=the
> teleport fails completely, but annihilation unfortunately succeeds).
> How can you exclude that? Are you assuming that _every_ computation is
> conscious qua computation? (then I would agree -> QI; but I don't share
> that assumption, and I don't see it anywhere in UDA)
> Best Wishes,
> GŁnther
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Mar 12 2009 - 16:16:07 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST