On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Bruno Marchal got the feeling that John Clark develops an allergy to
> pronouns. From Bruno Marchal's long time experience, the roots of the
> allergy is guessed to come from the inability to keep the 1-3 person view
> distinction all along the thought experience
If Bruno Marchal abandoned personal pronouns then Bruno Marchal would be
FORCED to keep those 1-3 person view distinction straight all along the
thought experience, and that is precisely why Bruno Marchal refuses to do
it, Bruno Marchal's entire theory would evaporate away in a puff of
ridiculousness. Personal pronouns in philosophical proofs are like
dividing by zero in mathematical proofs, both are great places to hide
sloppy thinking.
> I need John Clark still answering this: does JC agree that in step 3
> protocol,
John Clark doesn't remember what the "step 3 protocol" is but is quite
certain it, like everything else in the "proof", is not important.
> + the promise of giving coffee to both reconstitutions, the probability
of the experience "drinking coffee" is one?
Both? That's sounds rather dull, why not give give it to one but not the
other?
> I ask John Clark in Helsinki, who already agreed that John Clark will
> survive (with comp and the default hypotheses), and I ask John Clark's
> expectation of drinking soon a cup of coffee.
John Clark is 100% certain that John Clark will drink that coffee and John
Clark is 100% certain that John Clark will not drink that coffee. And after
the experiment is carried out the outcome will prove that John Clark was
not only certain but correct too.
>> Bruno Marchal just said "all of them are you" therefore it doesn't take
>> a professional logician to figure out that "you" will see Moscow AND
>> Washington.
>
>
> > Brilliantly correct, for the 3p description of the experience attributed
> to 3p bodies. But as Kim pointed out, it does not take long to a child to
> understand that this was not what the question was about.
If that is not the question you wanted answered then rephrase the question
so it makes logical sense and ask it; you're a logician so you should know
how to do that, and if not then get that child you were talking about to
help you. I can't give an answer, not even a incorrect answer, to a
incoherent question.
> > The question is about the first person experience
The? There is no such thing are THE first person experience!
> > expected
What on earth do expectations about the future have to do with the nature
of personal identity? If things don't turn out as you expected does that
make you feel like you've lost your identity?
> >> The question was "what city will you see ?", to answer that question
>>> it is necessary to know what the word "you"
>>
>>
>> > > We need only to agree on the approximate meaning which is enough to
>> pursue the reasoning. And we have agreed to
>
>
> > define the 3p "you" by your body
^^^
Hmm.. "you" has the body owned by "you" and it's true I do agree that "You
is you" regardless of the definition of "you". And this is a fine example
of a tautology that like all tautologies is true but unlike some this one
is silly and useless too.
>> If Bruno Marchal dislikes that conclusion and wants to say "you will
> see only one city" then it would be necessary to change the definition of
> "you" from the guy who remembers being in Helsinki to something else.
>
> On the contrary, we can just keep that definition. Computationalism
> predicts that both will remember to be the guy in Helsinki
Good, so Bruno Marchal is conceding that according to that definition of
the pronoun "you" will see Moscow AND Washington.
> So both who have the memory of Helsinki understand what I meant by "you
> (John Clark) will be in one city.
What the hell?! If "you" has been duplicated then it would be IMPOSSIBLE
for "you" to see only one city. Despite what your third grade teacher may
have said if matter duplicating machines exist then the the word "you" is
plural not singular.
> the question is about the future 1p experience
Then the question is gibberish because there is no such thing as THE
future 1p experience.
> and by comp, we know that
I know nothing from "comp".
> >> > as each of them cannot feel to see both W and M simultaneously,
>>
>
> So what? Suzzy had 2 apples and gave one to Tommy and one to Johnny, so
>> who received an apple from Suzzy?
>
>
> > Hmm... let me think. Tommy and Johnny?
But there was 2 apples and yet both Tommy and Johnny agree they have only
one apple! I believe this thought experiment is just as paradoxical as your
thought experiment. Not very.
> That's enough to understand that in helsinki, knowing that you will
survive and
^^^
Yep, personal pronouns can cover up a huge amount of sloppy thinking.
> Comp gives a precise answer
That's cute, but to tell the truth I don't care what "comp" gives because
I'm not interested in your baby-talk.
> > In AUDA [...]
And I''m not interested in your alphabet soup either.
> > > After the duplication there are two; logically incompatible, 1p
>> perspectives.
>>
>
>> How on earth is that logically incompatible??
>
>
> > Because, "to feel to be in Washington" is incompatible with "to feel to
> be in Moscow",
That is true, but neither is incompatible with having felt to be in
Helsinki, and the question was asked of the man in Helsinki.
> The 3-you are plural, but the 1-you feel unique
There is no such thing as THE 1-you. And both feel unique.
> In the 3-1 view, but that is never experienced.
If its never experienced then it's not much of a view and all this pee pee
business is indeed crap.
> Just keep the 3-1 distinction all along the thought experience,
That sounds like a very good idea, so Bruno Marchal should prove that Bruno
Marchal actually knows how to keep all that straight by restating the
entire thought experiment and the ensuing question without using personal
pronouns and without saying "the" when the proper word would be "a".
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/d/optout.
