On 18 Nov 2012, at 19:30, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> We just agreed that the helsinki man is the one who remember Helsinki, so that both the W and M man are still the Helsinki man.

Fine, and Bruno Marchal said that "you" is the Helsinki man and Bruno Marchal just said "the W and M man are still the Helsinki man" (please note the use of the word "and");

We have to describe the situation in the 3p way. But this has to been used to get the 1p conclusions, which is what you fail to do.

therefore the answer to the question " what city will you see after you push the button?" is rather obvious because YOU HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.

And what is it? That I see both Washington and Moscow. No, you would not go that far (and that would contradict what you have already agree on).

So you are thinking that it is "I see W and not M, and I see M and not W". This is correct in the 3-view on the 1-views, but is simply contradictory from the 1-views on the 1-view. You can't see both city simultaneously. The W-man and the M-man are both the Helsinki, man, but there are no more supporting the same 1-view. No problem here, because "you have been duplicated".

> you confuse the 1)view and the 3-view,

Dear god not more peeing!!

This does not help your case.

If its going to be of any value to me at all I've got to know who "you" is from my point of view, that is to say from the point of view of the reader of the thought experiment. In your last post you were clearer then usual about who "you" is but that was a mistake because it leads to a conclusion you don't like,


so now all you can do is use more pronouns and pee more.


> But seeing W only and M only is a contradiction, from the 1p view. None of the copies will write in their unique diary "I see W only and I see M only".

My car weighs 2000 pounds but half my car weighs 1000 pounds, if half my car could write in its diary it would say it weighs 1000 and only 1000 pounds yet my car weighs 2000 pounds, and to make matters even worse you are unable to predict which of the two 1000 pound weights half of my car will weigh. Therefore I have discovered a new type of indeterminacy involving my car never before known to science.


> Read AUDA where the pronouns are handled

Pronouns don't need to be handled, they just exist for convenience and economy and to make prose sound smoother, but logical ideas can be expressed without pronouns; but even though exact copies are running all over the place in the thought experiment and Bruno Marchal was asked repeatedly not to use pronouns Bruno Marchal is incapable of expressing ideas without using pronouns; indeed the ambiguous nature and shifting meaning of words like "you" and "I" is the only hope of concealing the logical blunders at the center.

You hope, indeed.
See AUDA which use a "well known technic" to avoid pronouns, if you think there is a problem. Up to now, you fail to answer a very simple question of prediction (which most people if not all, except sunday philosophers) have any trouble with.

You push on a button, and, as a comp is assumed, you know that when you will open your eyes WHOEVER you will be by the comp assumption, you will see only only once city, and you are asked to evaluate which one. If "W" and "M" represent the two possible subjective outcomes, you, in Helsinki, know in advance that, after pushing the button and doing the self-localization:

1) W & M is contradictory,
2) W is refuted by the M-man,
3) M is refuted by the W-man
4) W v M is acknowledged by both.

So the answer is the non constructive exclusive OR: W v M. You can paraphrase it by (said by the H-man): I will feel myself to be in W or in M, but I can't be sure of which one.

In the iterated case, this is even more obvious, and will be: I will live sequence of W and M, like WWMMWMMMW..., and I can't be sure of which sequence. The majority of copies interviewed after will confirm the prediction (stronger than P = 1/2, actually) that such sequence are algorithmically non compressible, and thus truly random.

> Comp is just a "digital" version of Descrates mechanism (roughly speaking the body functions like some machine)

Then there is already a better and much more widely used word for that "scientific"; indeed to my knowledge "comp" is not used anyplace except on this list, and even then only by a few.

Your knowledge is poor the, as "computationalism" is used widely, and the comp I have defined is a weak version implied by all the others. And so the consequence of this weaker comp is inherited by all versions, making the result quite general.

> find a refutation of step 3, which does not confuse the 1 and 3 views, which does not confuse the 1 and 3 views, nor change the protocol. I am all ears,

First tell me who "you" is from the point of view of the reader of the thought experiment without using more ambiguous pronouns to explain that ambiguous pronoun.

From the point of view of the reader, you can be attached to all the bodies involved. So you are the Helsinki man in Helsinki, and then you are the W-man AND the M-man, as with comp we can attribute consciousness and "Clark's identity" to both copies. That is the intellectual 3p view on the 1-views. But the question is about what you will feel, and in that case, it is pretty obvious that WHOEVER you can be after pushing on the button, in all circumstances, you will feel to be in only one city, and you have to evaluate the chance that it is W, OR M. It is the use of "1" and "3" which prevents any ambiguity to make the reasoning invalid.



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