On 7/3/2015 9:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote:
>
Your misusing the grammar and treating it as fact. "The first-person
perspective"
doesn't imply there is only one person; it's just a label for a certain
kind of
perspective.
Bruno and others continually ask, "what city will the Helsinki Man see from *THE* first
person perspective?" when I answer "Moscow and Washington" they always respond the same
way "that's impossible, *HE* can't see 2 cities at the same time".
But if "he" means the guys who remember being the Helsinki Man (something we both agreed
to) why can't "he" see 2 cities at the same time? At this point Bruno always
regurgitates the same stale canned response "you confuse the 1p and the 3p" as if that
clears up everything. So Brent, when Bruno talks about "*HE*" or "*THE* first person
perspective" what the hell is Bruno talking about?
He's talking about the inner thoughts and perceptions of a person; as opposed to what
onlookers my observer about a person. Onlookers can see that someone calling himself John
Clark has stepped out of the duplicator. But that person also has an inner experience of
seeing a city which is different from Helsinki where he remembers entering the duplicator.
But I think this is all just semantic hash. The point of the experiment is to show that
the randomness of personal experience in quantum experiments is explicable as a
duplication (or multiplication) of the stream of physical or computational processes that
instantiate consciousness. If you were interested in the question of whether the
appearance of a physical world is explained by assuming computationalism, you'd just
accept this as a hypothetical and move on.
Brent
A conscious being can look into the past and always see one and only one sequence of
previous selves that define who he is today, but there is no corresponding unique path
into the future, many things could happen and if Everett was right do happen; in fact to
a conscious being that's the difference between the past and the future, and the point
where that change occurs is the present. Bruno is trying to define himself by looking to
the future but that's like pushing on a string, it doesn't work.
>
The diary is just a form of memory that can be objectively verified.
I know, and that's why the entire diary business is just a silly pointless
complication to an already silly thought experiment; the validity of memory was never a
point of contention, at least not by me.
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
