On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>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,
> >That does not follow. > So even then Bruno Marchal would not be able to keep those 1-3 person view distinctions straight? > >> and that is precisely why Bruno Marchal refuses to do it, > > Where? never make a comment like that, always quote. > Huh? It would be rather difficult to provide a quote of what Bruno Marchal DIDN'T say. If Bruno Marchal has ever made a post on this subject that didn't contain wall to wall personal pronouns John Clark has not see it and would appreciate somebody re-posting it. >>>> 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; > > Just read the posts, or the paper, as this has already been done many > times. > And yet Bruno Marchal is unwilling, or much more likely unable, to ask it just one time time. John Clark thinks it's because Bruno Marchal knows that personal pronouns would have to be used to cover up all the sloppy thinking. > > Everyone, but you, undresrand that assuming comp > I don't assume "comp". > >>> The question is about the first person experience > > > >> The? There is no such thing are THE first person experience! > > > Of course there is. > Bullshit. There is "A" first person experience but there is no such thing as "THE" first person experience if the person has been duplicated. > >You push on a button, and you open a door, and you see a city. > Who opens the door? Who sees a city? Bruno Marchal just can't do without that personal pronoun addiction, it's the best place to stash sloppy thinking. > >> If things don't turn out as you expected does that make you feel like > you've lost your identity? > > > You evade the elementary question > That's because you refuse to state what that mysterious question is. You did say it was in one of the thousands of posts you've sent to the list over the years but I haven't found it yet. If I check 5 old posts a day I might be able to find it sometime before 2020. > children and layman understand more easily the indeterminacy > I keep telling you, if you can't clearly and logically formulate that then question get that child to help you. > >> so Bruno Marchal is conceding that according to that definition of the >> pronoun "you" will see Moscow AND Washington. > > > > You are a bit ambiguous on the views again. > I'm ambiguous?!! All I want is a non-ambiguous definition of "you" such that it would be logical to tell the Helsinki Man "you will only see one city". Are you going to tell me you already did this in one of your old posts that I somehow missed? > > by comp the *experience*remains singular. > I don't care about "comp" or any of your baby talk. > >>> the question is about the future 1p experience > > > >> Then the question is gibberish because there is no such thing as THE > future 1p experience. > > > That is refuted by *all* those doing the experiences. > If *all* were having a 1p experience then there is no such thing as "THE" 1p experience. . > > The question was asked of the man in Helsinki about what he will felt in > the future. > ^^ > That question has the personal pronoun "he" in it so the answer depends on what "he" means: 1) If "he" means Bruno Marchal then "he" will experience Moscow AND Washington. 2) If "he" means the man currently experiencing Helsinki then "he" will experience nothing because nobody will be experiencing Helsinki in the future.. 3) If "he" means the man who remembers being the Helsinki man and now is experiencing Moscow then then "he" will see Moscow. 4) If "he" means the man who remembers being the Helsinki man and now is experiencing Washington then then "he" will see Washington.. So Bruno, which one of these does "he" mean? > >> There is no such thing as THE 1-you. > > > > It is THE 1-you of each reconstituted person? > The Helsinki Man is reconstituted TWICE, so there is no such thing as "THE" future 1-view of the Helsinki Man. > You confess all the time that you don't even know what comp is > Nobody knows what "comp" is, least of all Bruno Marchal. > > or step 3 is, > Oh I know what step 3 is, step 3 is crap. > and that you have not read anything after step 3 > If step 3 of a proof is crap only a fool would read step 4. I am not a fool. 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/d/optout.
