On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 17 Feb 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND >>> PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. >>> >> >> >The question is what do you [blah blah] >> > > DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. > > > I did, as you quote below. > > > > You = the unique 1p owner of your personal memory in Helsinki >> > > Then after the button has been pushed and the personal memory in Helsinki > is not unique anymore who is the "p" in the "1p" ? And why 1, what is so > one-ish about it? > > > You seem to have problem with english. I have answered that question many > times. The p in the 1p is persons in both cities. There are one-ish in > their own first person pov, on the which the question was about, as with > comp we know that both feel unique, and both are genuine descendant of the > person in Helsinki. > > > > > > >>> In Helsinki you know that P(my experience will be the experience of >>>> seeing a unique city) = 1. >>> >>> >> >> Who is Mr. my? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO >>> CLEAR REFERENT. >>> >> >> > The unique 1p owner of your [blah blah] >> > > DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. Is Mr. p blah or blah? > > > ? > > > > > > By comp we know that [blah blah] >> > > Well good for "comp". > > >>> the question asked was about his first person experience, >>>> >>> >>> >> Who is Mr. his, and who exactly is the person having this "first >>> person experience"? Be specific, give names, and DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS >>> WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. >>> >> >> > The question is asked to John-Clark with diary H, before the pushing on >> the button. > > > >> Who is Mr. you? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO >>> CLEAR REFERENT >>> >> >> T>he owner of the H diary, before he pushes on the button > > > If the owner of the diary, a certain Mr. he, is John Clark then the > correct prediction would be that Mr. he will see both Washington AND > Moscow. > > > Not from their 1p view, unless you assume non Turing emulable telepathy. > > > > > However if Mr. he is the fellow who is experiencing Helsinki right now > then the correct prediction would be Mr. he will see neither Washington NOR > Moscow. > > > Simple calculus show that this prediction will be refuted by both copies. > That should be enough to understand that they did not answer the right > question. Or comp is false, and you would die in the simplest > teleportation, without duplication, of step one. But then non-step-3 > entials non-comp, which proves the point. > > > > > But of course none of this really matters because predictions, good bad or > indifferent, have nothing to do with identity and the feeling of self. > > > Exactly. That's my point. Except that we are handling the prediction > problem, not the identity problem which we have solved (we are both copies, > in the 3p, but only one of them, in he 1p view). > > > > > Well comp implies [blah blah] >> > > Well good for "comp". > > >> > Please go to step 4. >> > > Why? Because the first 3 steps were so free of ambiguity? The entire point > of including strange but physically possible machines like duplicating > chambers in a thought experiment is that it forces (or at least it should > force) Bruno Marchal and John Clark to reexamine concepts that in a world > without such machines seem so self evidently true that they're not worth > thinking about. But even in these bizarre circumstances Bruno Marchal > continues to use pronouns in exactly the same way that Bruno Marchal does > in the everyday world when Bruno Marchal orders a pizza. > > > No. Only when thinking about comp, or about Everett QM. In everyday life > we use the pronouns "I" both for the 1p and 3p self-reference. The context > supplies the information. But here, we have to make the distinction > explicit. Your "argument' consists of attributing a notion of "I" which I > don't use at all. > > > > Duplicating chambers are not everyday things and thus everyday language is > not good enough in a world that contains them; if the referent to personal > pronouns was always unambiguous then the thought experiment itself would be > unnecessary because the point it was trying to make would already be clear. > > > That's why I ask you to take the distinction into account. It saves the > whole reasoning from ambiguity. You just rename the indeterminacy into an > ambiguity, but you convince no one. > That's it. >From what I can understand in John's posts concerning "the pronouns", he is just hammering away this tautology again and again, exploiting the very indeterminacy that is the consequence of this part of UDA, claiming it's some unfair, unclear, strange, non-standard ambiguity that implies bad reasoning. If John is serious and not trolling you/the list on this matter, this is probably why he thinks he found some flaw, when he seems to just underestimate the result of the argument at this point; because on the other hand to him "it's so clear you can't predict the next moment... so trivial [+add some standard insult with an acronym]"... but if it were so trivial, this would be clear to him by now. This is large part of why I remain unconvinced of John's "refutation by pronoun trouble", even though I can't speak for the others. Another part is that his tone is consistently disrespectful, to say the least. I mean, everybody here has a sharp tongue and can go too far sometimes (in debate, some amount of this is natural), but with John, respectful posting on this topic is like some rare wild animal. It's also the subtlety that keeps giving his attacks the appearance of being substantial, because he does exploit the truth of indeterminacy resulting from the reasoning to make the argument seem unclear. But I don't see a problem on the reasoning level. Yes, what's indeterminate is not clear; a point that is arrived at by valid/straight reasoning from step 0 to 3. PGC > The 1p indeterminacy is 3p defined, and everyone who can read a diary and > distinguish "W" from "M" can understand the argument. > > 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. > > > 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. > -- 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.
