From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb Mon Jan  6 10:30:15 EST 1992
Article 2463 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!speedy.cs.pitt.edu!geb
>From: geb@speedy.cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: More replies to jbaez
Message-ID: <12834@pitt.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jan 92 15:56:05 GMT
References: <1991Dec28.194855.16543@galois.mit.edu> <61194@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: news@cs.pitt.edu
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 21

In article <61194@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>Here's some supposing for you.  What is our internal representation of
>"self"?  It has a peculiarity compared to other such, in that it is not
>transferable.  One way to achieve this directly is with a Wigner's friend
>situation.  The internal wave function for "self" can be inspected by our
>"Wigner's friend" of a mind, collapsing it, while to others this "self"
>wave function is permanently uncollapsed.
>

But is an abstraction such as self something appropriately represented
by a wave function?  This sort of argument seems rather bizarre to
me.  Maybe I don't really understand what you are saying.  Aren't
wave functions supposed to represent real objects?


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "When in danger, or in doubt
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu     |  Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


