On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> You again! John Clark expects that Bruno Marchal >> >> will continue to use words in the "proof" that implicitly assumes the >> very thing it's trying to prove. >> > > > > > Are you joking or what? > I'm not joking so I guess it's what. > YOU told me that "YOU" is not ambiguous BEFORE the duplication, > Yes. > > > which is when the question "What do you expect..." is asked. > First of all what somebody expects to happen has no bearing on this matter, only what does happen is important . And secondly the entire question is "what will happen to you *AFTER* YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED?". And the answer to that question has no single answer because *YOU *HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. To maintain that only one thing can happen to two things is just silly. > > It is like when you say you don't know what comp is, when by definition > comp is used for the indexical version I gave of computationalism > I know what computationalism is, and countless times on this list I've seen "according to comp this will happen but according to comp that will not happen"; so I know that "comp" and computationalism are not the same thing and are not even close, but what "comp" actually is remains a mystery to me. > > You just disbelieve that comp -> step 3, but that's different. > I neither believe nor disbelieve in "comp". 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.
