On 3/16/2012 3:09 PM, David Nyman wrote:
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

Dear David,

Would it be not wrong to think of ordinary motion of an object through space as a form of repetitive "cut and paste" operation?

Onward!

Stephen

--
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