O n Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> To hell with this 3p crap! We agreed that "you" meant remembering being >> a man in Helsinki > > > > > Yes. > Good. *PERIOD.* > > > > > No > Not good. To say that "you" "meant remembering being a man in Helsinki" does not > determined the 1p, > If "you" doesn't mean remembering being a man in Helsinki then I ask for the 9999 time, what the hell does the personal pronoun "you" mean? If Bruno is unable to give a coherent answer to that question, and by now it's pretty clear that Bruno can not, then please stop using that word when trying to tackle issues like personal identity or the unique feeling of self. > > you cannot live both experience at once Who cannot live both experiences at once? > The guy has been duplicated, there is no such thing as " *the* 1p". > > > It is, obviously, the 1p that you will live in > The 1p that who will live in? > > > You have agreed yourself that as long as the reconstitution boxes have not > been open, the same consciousness is attached to the copies > Yes. > > and you have agreed that they differentiate > > after opening the door. > Yes. > > > both individual are the H-man > Yes. > both have differentiate into person seeing one city > Yes. > > > both will admit they got one bit of information. > That is not new information. Even before the reconstitution boxes have been opened I (there was still only one John Clark then, so "I" is not ambiguous) knew that when those doors were opened one John Clark would receive photons from Moscow and one John Clark would receive photons from Washington. And I also knew which one would be which, I knew the Moscow Man would get his photons from Moscow and the Washington Man would get his photons from Washington. Nothing new has been learned. > >> >> And how many cities will those two yous observe from the first person? >> >> John Clark believes the answer is 2. > > > Again you say a triviality in the 3p description, and a contradiction > *for* the 1p perspective, when seen *from* the 1p-perspective, which was > the point of the question. > If duplicating chambers are involved there is no such thing as *the *1p perspective when seen from *the* 1p-perspective . One perspective has just as much a right to be called "first" as another. > > > You try hard to blur the 1p/3p distinction > Don't be an ass. The trouble isn't the distinction between 1p and 3p, the trouble is the distinction between *the* 1p and *a* 1p. 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.
