On 07 Jul 2016, at 19:05, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I can stop here.
> That is probably wise.
But deep down John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't stop here,
John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't be wise.
> but apparently once you get that there is no problem with the
pronouns and name,
Bullshit. When names are substituted for personal pronouns
the vapidness of the "proof" becomes obvious and the entire
argument falls to pieces.
Sure.
All Bruno Marchal has done in Bruno Marchal's "proof" is to
sweep metaphysical puzzles under a rug made of nothing but personal
pronouns.
> you just came back to your oldest strategy (faking a
confusion between 1p and 3p points of view
On the contrary there is no confusion, Bruno Marchal's error is
crystal clear. Bruno Marchal thinks that by defining "1p" as "I"
and "I" as "1p", and by defining "3p" as "he" and "he" as "3p" great
philosophical progress has been made.
I never did that. You repeat your confusion between 3p and 3-1p.
> That strategy has already been debunked more than one times
by many people on this list.
Bullshit.
Sure.
> It would be most boring to make another tour.
And yet no doubt you (Mr. 3p) will.
> Of course if any one else has still a problem with the first
person indeterminacy [...]
Nor does Mr. 1p have a problem with it. I (or Mr. 1p) have no
problem whatsoever with first person indeterminacy and never
have, for as far back as I (or Mr. 1p) can remember I (or
Mr. 1p) have been unable to always know what would happen next.
> at this point, without further motivation to do so, I will
not add anything
You (or Mr. 3p) haven't added anything in a very long time.
We have debunked your strategies, showing that the proof was fine
right, so why would we change it, and indeed, it is very easy. You are
the only one (except for Delahaye) having a problem with this... well
faking having a problem with this.
It is plain obvious that WvM is confirmed by all 1p copies, and all
other propositions are refuted by at least one copy, so, given the
definition of 1p, it follows directly. You deny he simplest point of
the UDA. And by the way, you have took some times to criticize the
step 7 (without noticing it, and contradicting you fake non
comprehension, but there you used the usual knock-down argument,
refuted by the dream phenomenon.
The reason I keep pointing on your strategies is that you are the only
opponent I can confront on this. The others are literary philosophers
that have never said more than non-convincing, and never in myb
presence. It probably reassure me that your strategy is really simple,
and is not related with anything I could say. This last two post
illustrates very well. I am also interested in your motivation, which
is not your religious materialist belief (that I have already figure
out), so what?
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
