On 14 Dec 2012, at 21:54, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <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.

Of course, as the guy is duplicated, and the question is about a future first person points of view, which is single (as the two copies can handled only one diary and put only a definite result in there). To confirm the probabilities, with such a definition of 1-view, you have to interview all copies.

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.

If you read the post you can see that I have no more use pronouns for a whole. I use "H-man, W-man, M-man, and you have agreed on the key points:
- the M and W men are both the H-man
- the M and W men are different.
this gives sense to the first person indeterminacy lived by the H-man before the duplication. Your problem is that you keep the 3p view throughout the experience, in which case everything is deterministic, but this avoids the question asked, simply.

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.

I have no more used pronouns, to help yopu, as this was pure red herring once you label them correctly with respect to the 1/3 distinctions.

> 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

Wong. I told you: all of them. It is easy, they all agree that they get a result that they was unable to predict, so the 1p-indeterminacy is a certainty for the "original" candidate.

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.

pfft.... You are discouraging as you don't even read the comments. You get stuck in the easy part of the derivation.

Nobody can teach anything to people who does not the homework.



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