Jacques Mallah wrote:
> It's nice that you reject FIN! Of course, those who support it can give
>(and have given) no reason ...
Surely this is an exageration. I recall that I am still waiting for
you showing a flaw in the UDA (the "Joel" version).
But here you betraye yourself:
> ... since it's a nonsensical belief.
You admit not having read the "reasons/explanations" we propose because
you "know" at the start "it's a nonsensical belief"!!!
You are begging the question since the beginning.
But I am still waiting *you* explain me how in the W M duplication, you
can both still believe in comp and pretend the question of what I will
feel is nonsense.
Oh yes I remember, you don't see the difference between 1 and 3 person
point of view ... Like some physicist you tranform the methodological
evacuation of the subject in an ontological dogma. Indeed I see you say
that words like "me" or "you" are mere definition.
I believe the contrary, from the 1 person point of view, the word "me"
is not even definissable. That is what makes grandma psychology not
really intuitive in the multiplication settings, but that is why I
replace it eventually by the self-reference logics where the consistency
of comp immortality (and so at least the sensicalness) is beyond doubt.
Of course I have infinite doubt about that immortality, but I have
no doubt comp entails it logicaly/arithmeticaly.
About your saying you are sane, at first i take it for an attempt
being comical. Your last answer to Hal Finney is really uncomical.
Scientist always doubt ...
You talk like you have certainty on our subject matter, which as Hal said
is certainly not "easy" (not easy at all).
Also I (re)read you implementation paper where, as I said, you
definitely and admittedly don't have solved the implementation problem,
but then why do you injuriate us with seemingly certainties?
I'm also less and less sure bayesian reasoning works in our
mathematically infinite context ...