Any time John Clark pretends that he does not understand or believe in
first-person indeterminancy, refer him to his own post where he admitts to
understanding it and believing in it:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/5PR1FXp_CSU/PnuTSn_82PwJ

John Clark: "So yes, subjectively the intelligence would have no way of
knowing if A was true or B, or to put it another way subjectively it would
make no difference."

Note: In case A the inputs to the mind are controlled by a random number
generator and in case B, the mind is duplicated and shown different
results. So by accepting there is no subjective difference, John Clark
accepts that true randomness is subjectively indistinguishable from
duplication and bifurcation. In other words, John Clark knows that
duplication and bifurcation can yield the appearance of randomness.

Jason

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:27 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
> self"?
>
>
>> >> 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.
>

-- 
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