John, Sorry, I missed your reply. Some comment's in-line below:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I came across this today, which you might find of interest: >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes >> to great pains to describe the importance of the first person / third >> person distinction. >> >> > Of course it's important, but I didn't need Bruno's help to figure that > out. And I especially agree when is says "To avoid linguistic confusion it > is crucial that we distinguish between the outside view of the world [from > ] the inside view". Yes, we must avoid linguistic confusion! > But in all your responses to Bruno's question you use only the objective viewpoint, not the subjective viewpoint, as the thought experiment demands. > > It's true that in everyday usage there is no linguistic confusion and it > would be silly to keep asking "what do you mean by the pronoun "you?", but > this is very far from everyday usage. This is a thought experiment > involving identity duplicating machines and is a vital part of a proof that > is trying to find something new about the very thing that is being > duplicated, identity. Under those very very exotic circumstances the > meaning of the personal pronoun "you" is far from obvious. And if the > meaning of "you" is vague then the difference between 1p and 3p is vague > too, and that is not acceptable in a proof that claims to be mathematically > precise. > "You" refers to any survivor according to the assumption of the computational theory of mind. Guessing your next subjective experience is a prediction made from the first person, subjective, inside, frog view, and verification of that prediction, done following the duplication, is also performed from the subjective, inside, frog view. Of course there are two such entities called John Clark after the duplication, but that is the objective view, not the subjective. Subjectively, neither can (immediately) be sure of the existence of the other, the only thing they know for certain is that they arrived in one of the cities. > > So when Bruno asks "will you in Helsinki survive the duplication?" or > "what city will you see?" it depends entirely on what "you" means. > That question isn't asked, what is asked is to make a prediction regarding the subjective, first person, inside frog view, and then to evaluate that prediction from the subjective, first person, inside frog view. > To me, and to Bruno too before he panicked and backpedaled, "you" is the > guy(s) who remembers being the Helsinki Man; thus I would answer that yes > "you" will survive and "you" will see both Moscow and Washington. > Objectively, yes. Subjectively you have no idea whether you were duplicated or transported to one of the two locations at random. Jason > And if the ASCII sequence y-o-u means something different in another > language then John Clark would answer the questions differently. > > Try answering it from the subjective viewpoint(s). Jason > > > > > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.