On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>>  The probability is 100% that if you receive sights and sounds from
>> Moscow and not Washington you will become the Moscow man and not the
>> Washington man.
> But the question which was asked is avoided here. What if you know in
> advance that 3-you will be both in M and in W, knowing that with comp the
> 1-you [...]

I said that much of the problem is one of language and this is a perfect
example of that because you just made a grammatical error; its plural, you
should have said "the 1-yous".

>  [...] will not feel to be at both place.

If I'm avoiding the question its because I don't understand exactly what
the question is, let me try to cover all the bases. What is the probability
that both the Washington and the Moscow man will remember being the
Helsinki man? 100%. What is the probability the Helsinki man will receive
signals from Moscow turning him into the Moscow man? 100%. What is the
probability the Helsinki man will receive signals from Washington turning
him into the Washington man? 100%. What is the probability the Helsinki man
will receive signals from neither Washington nor Moscow and thus leaving
him as the Helsinki man? 100%. What is the probability the Helsinki man
will feel like the Moscow man? 0% because if he felt like the Moscow man he
wouldn't be the Helsinki man anymore. What is the probability the Moscow
man will feel like the Washington man? 0% because if he felt like the
Washington man he wouldn't be the Moscow man anymore. What is the
probability that a third party in all this will see a person in Helsinki
and Washington and Moscow with all 3 having a exactly equal right to call
themselves John K Clark? 100%.

Where is the indeterminacy in all this and what question have I avoided?

> To say, when imagining yourself in Helsinki, that you neither agree or
> disagree with the indeterminacy illustrates that you are indeterminate on
> the outcome you will live.

It illustrates that the question is gibberish. This entire business reminds
me of Thomas Nagel's famous essay "What is it like to be a bat?" that for
reasons I've never understood was the vogue in certain circles a few years
ago. Personally I've never had much use for it. Nagel doesn't want to know
what it would be like if he were a bat, he want's to know what it's like
for a bat to be a bat. The only way to do that would be to turn Nagel into
a bat, but then Nagel still wouldn't know because he'd no longer be Nagel,
he'd be a bat. Like all self contradictory tasks Nagel concludes that this
one can not be done and so demonstrates a keen grasp of the obvious, but I
don't know what deep philosophic insight is supposed to be gained from it.

>>  comp can never be proved
> > Yes.
> >>  or disproved
> > False. By UDA.

But as the proof of UDA critically relies on something you call "first
person indeterminacy" the proof is not valid.

> Nobody use the hypothesis that the brain is a machine in their everyday
> life.

I do and do not find it difficult in any way, but then I believe in comp.

 > If tomorrow comp is refuted, you will not feel a difference.

Yes I would, I'd start to seriously contemplate the very real possibility
that I am the only conscious being in the universe, and I doubt if madness
would lie very far beyond that.

>>  But that's another problem, you're giving the word "God" and the people
>> who think the word is sacred far more respect than they deserve.

> > Yes, but it is the good kind of respect.

Respect is a perfectly valid emotion but so is contempt, you can't say one
is superior to the other only that depending on circumstances one is more
appropriate than the other. As religion, in addition to being untrue, has
brought more misery to the world than any other single thing I don't
believe you can say that the major failing of the human race is that it
hasn't shown religion enough respect.

> You did agree that we might define GOD by whatever is responsible of our
> existence.

For the third time I did *NOT* agree to that, it is necessary but NOT
sufficient! God needs to be a person. If you start making up your own
personal definitions for common words you're not going to be able to
communicate with anyone.

 John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to