On 06.08.2012 19:29 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


    ? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.


     Because names are necessary for persistent distinguishability. Let
us try an informal proof by contradiction. Consider the case where it is
*not* necessary for a person to have a name. What means would then exist
for one entity to be distinguished from another? We might consider the
location of an entity as a proxy for the purposes of identification, but
this will not work because entities can change location and a list of
all of the past locations of an entity would constitute a name and such
is not allowed in our consideration here. What about the 1p content of
an entity, i.e. the private name that an entity has for itself with in
its self-referential beliefs? Since it is not communicable - as this
would make the 1p aspect a non-first person concern and thus make it
vanish - it cannot be a name. Names are 3p, they are public invariants
that form from a consensus of many entities coming to an agreement, and
thus cannot be determined strictly by 1p content. You might also note
that the anti-foundation axiom is "every graph has a unique decoration".
The decoration is the name! It is the name that allow for non-ambiguous
     A number's name is its meaning invariant symbol representation
class... Consider what would happen to COMP if entities had no names! Do
I need to go any further for you to see the absurdity of persons (or
semi-autonomous entities) not having names?

I am afraid that a name as such cannot solve the problem of personal identity.

A nice overview on personal identity is here, see 8.1 to 8.4



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