On 03 Oct 2013, at 19:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is
a 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man
because the Helsinki Man saw Moscow, and a 100% chance the Helsinki
Man will turn into the Washington Man because the Helsinki Man saw
Washington, and a 100% chance that the first person view of the
Helsinki Man will be a view ONLY of Helsinki because otherwise the
first person view of the Helsinki Man would not be the first person
view of the Helsinki man.
> This is uncontraversially, one might say trivially correct,
I would have thought so too, but however trivial it may be for
reasons I don't understand most on this list are unable to grasp
this simple truth.
> but it doesn't refute anything about the first person indeterminacy,
I don't know what indeterminacy you're talking about. LizR may not
be able to predict what LizR sees next, but as far as personal
identity is concerned that is irrelevant because whatever LizR sees
LizR will still feel like LizR.
You were kind enough to let the list know, along with Chris Peck,
that the flaw in the reasoning concerning step 3 of the UDA is "it
sucks".
Unless you guys backtrack and quit abusing the fact that Bruno's
politeness and dedication to critical debate puts him in default
mode of taking your points seriously and granting you the benefit of
the doubt that you would not in the faintest be inclined to grant in
return, these discussions are a one way street into brick walls with
"you suck" infantile graffiti sprayed on them at the end.
So unless you can state something more substantial than teenage
insults and ruses รก la "I don't understand THIS AND THAT!!!" or the
more passive but nonetheless authoritative "you're confusing first/
third person, everything is first person" etc. , I submit you guys
are trolling and wasting time on this.
Either be open for genuine discussion and finding of flaws or this
is pointless as it does a disservice to the readers of this list. It
is not difficult to see that refuting computationalism in this form,
would be a major result.
Your aspirations are lofty gentlemen, but they don't jibe with the
infantilization and the mockery masking itself as poised discourse
and clear debate. PGC
Good post :)
Thanks.
Bruno
John k Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
