On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> In Everett it's always obvious who I'm talking about when I use the
>> personal pronoun "you", it's the only other fellow in the room with me; but
>> in Bruno's thought experiment there is a man standing to the right of the
>> duplicating machine and a identical looking man standing to the left of the
>> duplicating machine and they both have a equal right to use the grand title
>> "you".
> But they know pretty well who they are in the first person way,

No they do not, not in a world with duplicating machines; and by insisting
that they do you're assuming the most important part of the very thing
you're trying to prove. Mr. You doesn't know if he's the copy or the
original. Mr. You doesn't know if he's 40 years old or 40 seconds old. Mr.
You does know that he's the guy who is having this thought right now, but
in a worjd of duplicating machines that is insufficient information to make
a differentiation because that fellow over there (or is it a mirror) could
be having the exact same thought at the exact same time.

> One told me: I see in my diary that I predicted (in Helsinki) that I
> would be at both places, but I see now that this was wrong

I predicted? In such a situation that would only be a half truth, it would
be much more accurate to say the Helsinki man predicted or Bruno Marchal
predicted. A pronoun has raised its ugly head yet again.

> >>> Then you can't say that you will survive anything. We die at each
>>> instant
>> >> OK, but then you can't say that survival is important, or that the
>> word means much of anything at all.
> > That was my point. Indeed. Comp would lost his meaning.

At last we agree on something, "comp" has lost it's meaning.

> >> 'Comp" is not trivial, "comp" is a gibberish word made up by you that
>> is almost as meaningless as "free will".
> > Comp is the mechanist thesis. You confuse axioms and theorems.

It's the erroneous theorems that you claim to have derived from the sound
axioms of computationalism that I object to. And that's the difference
between "comp" and  "computationalism", and that is why you insist on using
your homemade silly little word rather than the standard term.

> your preceding argument was shown to confuse the 1-view and the 3-view

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.

>> why do you keep emphasizing what the various copies will predict about
>> their future and how accurate those predictions turn out to be?
> > The point is that we need only a notion of first person self

I think therefore I am.

> and thrid person self

I know what a third person is, but what the hell is the "third person

> >> I honestly don't give a damn about "comp"
> > You said that you believe in comp.

I NEVER said I believe in "comp", I don't even know what your homemade word
means,  you claim it's just short for "computationalism" but that is
clearly untrue. For years I've tried to infer its meaning from your usage
but have been unsuccessful.

> If you think there is no 1-indeterminacy

I don't think that either!  It's not exactly a earthshaking discovery to
state that we often don't know what we will see next, I believe that was
first found by Og the caveman.  So everything you say is true or original,
the parts that are true are not original and the parts that are original
are not true.

  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to