On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is exactly what UDA shows that comp *leads* to a reduction of the > mind body problem into a body problem in arithmetic. > I don't know what "comp" is or what relevance the Universal Dance Association has to all this but never mind, what problem in arithmetic explains life the universe and everything? Is it how much is 6*7 ? > We don't need to try to define consciousness, > I agree, examples are far more important than definitions. > but to agree that consciousness is invariant for some transformation of > the brains, > Yes. > and this eventually reduce physics to a measure problem > Yes, if a measurement of a brain is made and information on the position and velocity of atoms is obtained another brain can be made with generic atoms that will produce a identical consciousness. > You didn't convince any one you refuted the reasoning, given that each > time you provided a counter-example it was shown to confuse the first and > third person views > For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the first person and the third person. > You say that the use of the pronouns is defectuous, but I am the one > insisting to keep clearly the distinction between pronouns referring to the > first person and the third person view (as defined with the notion of > personal diary). > How the hell does a diary help in making a clear distinction? There are 7 billion first person views on this planet and everybody writes about "I" in their diary. > You are in Helsinki, and by comp you know that you will survive one and > entire in a unique city, and you know you can't know which one precisely. > It will be one, and if you write W, the first person experience of the one > in M will refute it. > That's 6 uses of the personal pronoun "you" in just 50 words, 12%. And the entire purpose of the sentence was to cast light on the nature of "you", but I do admit that a proposition is far easier to prove if the very proposition can be used as a lemma in the proof itself. 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.
