On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Nobody will have two 1p from an 1p pov. > If Ed remains somebody even after Ed is duplicated then somebody will have two 1p from a 1p pov. However John Clark is reluctant to say what will happen to "you" until Bruno Marchal gives a much better explanation about what that personal pronoun means in a world with "you" duplicating machines. > > > We have agreed that both are "you". > Yes, and so "you" will be in Washington AND Moscow, and from that Bruno Marchal concludes that "you" will see only one city. And all the peepee in the world can't sweep that logical contradiction under the rug. > > > That is even the reason why we listen to both copies, and both comfirm the > W v M prediction, > > and both refute the W & M prediction > We must listen to both copies because the prediction was about "you" and because both are "you" and both CONFIRM the W AND M prediction. Not that predictions, correct or incorrect have anything to do with the continuous feeling of a unique self. >> >> >> if the guy in Helsinki is a fool he could predict monkeys will fly out of >> his ass. But I'm more interested in what will happen that in what some >> jackass believes will happen. > > > > > In that case you change the subject, which is not what will happen, but > what will be experienced (assuming the person believes or assumes > computationalism). > What the hell are you talking about?? What will happen *IS *what will be experienced and it doesn't matter one bit if the person assumes computationalism or not! >> >> >> Definitions are made of words and those words also have definitions also >> made of words and round and round we go; the only thing that breaks us out >> of that infinite loop is usage. Where do you think lexicographers got >> the information to write their dictionaries? Only one place, usage. > > > > > In science we use axiomatics, > Yes, you say computationalism is an axiom and then you use it in a "proof" that you claim proves this and that, but you're like a geometer what says that a Euclidean axiom is that 2 parallel lines never meet and then in a direct Euclidean "proof" starts talking about point X where 2 parallel lines meet. Usage beats definitions every time. > > you are just playing with word > AKA thinking. > > > as you have agreed that "you" is not ambiguous before the duplication. > And "you" *is* ambiguous after the duplication which is what the prediction was about. So why doesn't Bruno just substitute "Ed" for "you" and end this "you" controversy? Because "Ed" contains no ambiguity and thus Bruno would have no place to hide sloppy thinking. > > > I don't think anybody understand your point, > Yes, I'm the only one on the planet who failed to recognize the brilliance of your proof, and that is why you won the Nobel Prize. Oh wait .... > > Come on, you don't even try to answer a precise question asked in my last > post. > If I ever find a precise question in one of your posts I will answer it or say I don't know, but gibberish is not a question even if it has a question mark at the end. 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.
