On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> First of all what somebody expects to happen has no bearing
on this matter,only what does happen is important .
> NOT AT ALL.
Bruno Marchal expects one thing to happen, John Clark expects
another thing to happen and Ed expects a third, we can't all be
right but we can all be wrong.
You don't quote what I said. I don't understand what you say here.
> What does happen is 3p, and the question is about the 1p.
What! So whatever really does happen to Bruno Marchal after the
duplication there will be no 1p?
Why would I ask you to predict the 1p if there were none? Why do you
say this?
After the duplication Bruno Marchal will have no subjective
experience??
After duplication, both copies will have a (single, definite)
subjective experience.
> You just change the question asked.
No I didn't change a question, I changed gibberish into a
question.
Rhetorical trick. You did change the question.
>> And secondly the entire question is "what will happen to
you AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED?".
> AFTER, yes. But the question is asked before.
To answer the question "what one and only one thing will happen to
you AFTER the duplication?" there must be a clear understanding of
what one and only one thing YOU will be AFTER the duplication when
YOU is no longer one and has become TWO.
But from the 1p view, we never become two, we don't even feel the
split. We assume comp, remember?
And a clear understanding of gibberish
You beg the question. It is up to you to show what is gibberish.
can never happen so there is no answer because there is no question.
However if we asked "what will happen to Ed after the duplication?"
then that question would not be gibberish and if Ed were rational Ed
could correctly answer it.
"What will happen" in this context is ambiguous. It can mean "what
will happen from the 1p view", or "what will happen from the 3p view".
> And comp makes this predictable in advance.
I don't care what "comp" does.
>> 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
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.
Rhetroical trick. comp is computationalism. By definition. All what
you say is that the question is gibbersih, but that is what you were
supposed to say.
So in this post you are unclear, + two rhetorical tricks.
Bruno
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.
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.
