X-Message-Number: 22275 From: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:06 EDT Subject: assuming the consequent --part1_12b.2edda3d7.2c5a660a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim Freeman writes in part: > So we have to decide whether emotions etc. are computational properties. > I think > they are > > Even my own emotions are a computational property. For all I know, > the aliens landed while I was sleeping last night, ate all or part of > my brain, and replaced the part they consumed with some other device > that simulates the original computation. If it's a simulation that > gets the same job done as the original, and I don't get my head > x-rayed, I'd never know. By Occam's razor, there's no point in > distinguishing between two entities if the distinction doesn't make a > difference, so it makes sense to say that a simulation of an emotion > is the emotion. > Sorry, Tim--same old error, assuming the very thing you're trying to establish. You sweep the issue under the rug by saying "gets the same job done" and "doesn't make a difference." Yet again: A simulation is the same as the original only in some respects, not in all respects. You simply assume, as an article of faith, that the differences are not important. A decoy might fool a duck, but it isn't a duck. A hologram might fool a viewer, but it isn't the original and it isn't "as good" or "the same" in all respects. I can write down equations and numbers describing a hydrogen atom and its activities, but that description isn't a hydrogen atom and can't substitute for it except for limited purposes. If you really want to face the issue, don't talk about fancy devices--just talk about written descriptions. Do you really believe that a written description of you--complete in all details, and including a description of your changes over time--would be you, or would be a conscious person? Robert Ettinger --part1_12b.2edda3d7.2c5a660a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22275