On 12/14/2012 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote:


On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


    > In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM, alias 
comp),
    there are two first person points of view


Yes, Bruno Marchal has said that many times and it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the question is asked about the future state of "you" and demands are made for one and only one answer.

John Clark has been complaining about the unfettered use of personal pronouns in a world with duplicating chambers for a long time now, and yet those who disagree with John Clark continue to use those pronouns as frequently as ever, it seems that those people just cannot help themselves. The very fact that opponents are simply unable to express ideas without using those cancerous pronouns should give those people some insight into the nature of those aforesaid ideas.

    > you just limit yourself to the 3p view, and never put you feet in the 
shoes of the
    reconstituted person,


And Bruno Marchal never explains which of those two first person points of view "you" should put feet into and which first person viewpoint "you" should not. Bruno Marchal simply cannot converse on this subject unless 5 to 10% of the words are personal pronouns, in spite of the fact that if it was always clear what those pronouns referred to this entire debate would be unnecessary.

Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter and it sends him to Washington. That Bruno, Bruno_w goes back to Helsinki, gets in the transporter again and it sends him to Moscow. That Bruno_wm goes back to Helsinki and repeats this process many times. Eventually Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm concludes that the transporter seems to be random and just sends him to Washington or Moscow at random with probability 1/2. This is hailed as a great discovery...in Copenhagen. But in Washington (state) near the upper reached of Puget Sound there is a dislike of random things and a general feeling that randomness can never be a property of the world, but only a quantification of ignorance. So there a different view of Bruno_wmwwmwmmmww...mwm's experiment is that every time he pushed the button two whole universes were created, separated by more than the Hubble radius, and in one Bruno went to Bruno_w and in the other he went to Bruno_m. And so there was no probability involved, exactly the same thing happened every time. It only seemed like probability and randomness. Some people thought this was a little extravagant and asked how was energy conserved and how could this theory be tested. But they were silenced by being told the theory predicted exactly the same things as the probability theory without probabilities, so it must be right.

Brent
Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them
where they cannot be seen.
    --- Stephen W. Hawking

--
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