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>
> 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
- 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
> 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at