On 16 March 2012 17:28, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > since by assumption each successor must be restricted to a single,
>> > localised experience That's the whole point of this step in the UDA
>> > reasoning.
>
>
> I know, and that's exactly the problem.

OK, now we may be getting somewhere.  If that's "exactly the problem"
can I take it that you have some reason to dispute that the experience
of each successor would be individually localised in the ordinary way?
 Do you have an alternative account?  Make no mistake, I'm not asking
you to provide an enumeration of the different successors considered
as a group.  If you don't believe, in the thought experiment as
described, that the experience of each successor, considered
separately, would be individually localised, what DO you believe it
would be like, and on what alternative assumptions do you base this
belief?

David

> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:47 AM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
>
>> > What is intended by "the first person are no duplicable from their first
>> > person point of view" is just the mundane assumption that any subjective
>> > point of view is always limited to that of a single, localised individual.
>
>
> Evolution has created us to be comfortable with that mundane assumption
> because the environment does not contain duplicating chambers, but there is
> nothing physically impossible or logically self contradictory about such
> machines. So the idea that a  subjective point of view is always limited to
> that of a localized single individual is just that, a mundane assumption
> that worked well in the past but not necessarily in the future and is
> certainly not a law of nature, just a rule of thumb that has worked pretty
> well up to know.
>
>> >This is very far from being any kind of "mystical" claim
>
>
> It's as mystical as the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation, although
> all scientific tests say it's just like bread and wine they claim there is a
> ENORMOUS difference and now it's really the body and blood of GOD; and in my
> symmetrical room thought experiment all scientific tests say there is no
> difference between the original and the copy, and even the two themselves
> can not subjectively tell themselves apart, yet you insist there is still a
> ENORMOUS difference between the two. Compared to that the Catholic's idea is
> almost sensible.
>
>>
>> >it's just a statement about the limitations of ordinary experience.
>
>
> Yes, but duplicating chambers are not ordinary, they involve extraordinary
> experience.
>
>> > since by assumption each successor must be restricted to a single,
>> > localised experience That's the whole point of this step in the UDA
>> > reasoning.
>
>
> I know, and that's exactly the problem.
>
>> > Can we accept it and move on?
>
>
> You can do whatever you want, as for me I believe if a proof makes a blunder
> in the first sentence there is no point in reading more.
>
>   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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to