On 16 Aug 2015, at 22:24, John Clark wrote:
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.
OK, so you agree on this important thing. Let us see where is the
problem, then...
> 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,
Look again at the paper or the post. The question in step 3 bears
explicitly on what somebody expect to live subjectively.
This is your other frequent maneuver: you change the question asked.
only what does happen is important .
NOT AT ALL. What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p.
You just change the question asked.
And secondly the entire question is "what will happen to you AFTER
YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED?".
AFTER, yes. But the question is asked before.
And the answer to that question has no single answer because YOU HAS
BEEN DUPLICATED.
Absolutely correct ... if we were asked what will happen, and not, as
in step 3, what we expect to live subjectively.
To maintain that only one thing can happen to two things is just
silly.
False. When we interview the two copies, they both confirm that they
live only one thing (W or M) happening. And comp makes this
predictable in advance. You just keep taking about the 3p, but that is
NOT was is asked at the step 3.
> 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.
Comp means computationalism, and if you believe something is wrong in
"comp => step 3", it is up to you to just show the flaw. Not just
chnaging the 1p into 3p in the question.
But you illustrate that you got the point here, as you are forced to
change the step 3 question to maintain your point, but that is
logically equivalent to a proof by a reductio ad absurdum of my point.
You have just brilliantly show that when you try to avoid making a
blatant logical error in the attempt of a refutation that COMP entails
STEP 3, you are FORCED to change the question.
So come back to the question which is explicitly on what the guy in
Helsinki can expect to happen subjectively. Once you keep in mind the
question asked, P(W v M)= 1 is trivial, and P(W & M) = 0 is false.
So your error, or better, your maneuver in this post has consisted in
changing the 1p notion used in the question by the 3p. It is no more a
confusion between 1p and 3p, it is a direct change of the 1p of the
question into a 3p.
That is hardly equivalent with finding a flaw. Try better, or just
stop denying that you get the point, and move on step 4.
Bruno
PS got a lot of work. My comment might be delayed a bit.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
