I'm surprised by John's apparent failure to grasp the point too. I'm
used to John's self-certainty, but I'm not accustomed to him being
dumb. John, you seem hung up on the point about duplicating the 1-p
perspective and whether or not this is possible, but it all seems to
be a matter of semantics. In your symmetrical room, you've essentially
created fungible instances of a consciousness - identical in all
respects, but with *possibility* to diverge at any moment. Before the
duplication, no possibility of divergence existed. Such a scenario is
not a contradiction of comp or even relevant to the UDA at all really,
as far as I can tell. You've merely delayed the moment at which the
diaries diverge. You agree that the two identical consciousnesses do
not experience themselves in two places at once, neither before they
diverge from fungibility nor after, so you agree with Bruno. That's
the only point that matters. You're stuck on arguing about whether 1p
can be duplicated while missing the point that all Bruno is really
saying when he claims that 1p can't be plural is that the subjective
experience of 1-p cannot be plural, i.e., you can't feel yourself to
be in two places at once. Your comments indicate you see this. You
seem to be trying to read something more into this step of the UDA
than there is. It's a trivial step. I'm sure if we reduce it to
computers you'll agree. Let's take a computer that receives external
input and records it in memory - attached cam. Take that computer,
stop it, dismantle it and duplicate it in two different locations. The
new computers are switched on. Now their memory traces (diaries) show
a discontinuity, switching, as per teleportation, to their new
locations. If their new locations were visualIy identical, sure, their
memory states won't diverge yet, but that's not the point. Now f comp
is true, then these machines might be conscious machines, so the
memory trace will correspond to two separate subjectivities. If you
agree with all this, you agree with Bruno and there's nothing more to
On Mar 12, 6:36 am, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 'te bartender cuts in...' - I believe David indeed has no idea what the
> "real point in issue" may be - he would have been addressing it. There is *NO
> *real point.
> In those "thought experiments" (euphemism for phantasm to justify points of
> non-existence) certain prerequisites are also needed (additional phantasms)
> and justification for them, too. Then there are 'conclusions' imaginary and
> the consequences of such - built in.
> I admire the patience of Bruno replying to all those (circular?
> fantasy-related?) posts (I am not relating to your posts) - I lost the
> endurance to follow all of them lately. I read a lot of David's posts and
> think your expressed "...belie(f)ve your (i.e. David's) thinking is naive
> simplistic and commonplace." is wrong.
> It is a shame, because you seem to be a well-thinking and well-educated guy
> who works with well-crafted logical argumentation.
> I cannot raise my voice for/against indeterminacy because of my agnostic
> worldview that postulates lots of unknown/unknowable factors influencing
> our decisions - together with factors we know of and acknowledge - so
> uncertainty may be ignorance-based, not only haphazardous. A
> 'deterministic' totality, however, is a matter of belief for me -
> unjustified as well - because of the partial 'order' we detect in the so
> far knowable nature (negating 'random' occurrences that would screw-up any
> order, even the limited local ones).
> My worldview is my 'faith' - not subject to discussion.
> John Mikes
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
> > > John, I hope you will not think me impertinent, but you're expending a
> >> great deal of time and energy arguing with an elaborate series of
> >> straw men. No doubt this is great fun and highly entertaining, but
> >> would you consider the alternative of requesting clarification of the
> >> real point at issue? It's painful to see you repeatedly arguing past
> >> it.
> > If your thinking were clear and you understood what " the real point at
> > issue" was and you knew of a key question I have not answered you would
> > have certainly asked it somewhere in the above; but you did not I think
> > because you could not, and that fact makes me believe your thinking is
> > naive simplistic and commonplace. Prove me wrong.
> > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at