On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> On 05 Aug 2016, at 15:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 5/08/2016 10:11 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> On 5/08/2016 9:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Just tell me if you are OK with question 1. The Helsinki guy is told
>>>> that BOTH copies will have a hot drink after the reconstitutions, in both
>>>> Moscow and Washington. Do you agree that the Helsinki guy (a believer in
>>>> computationalism) will believe that he can expect, in Helsinki, with
>>>> probability, or credibility, or plausibility ONE (resp maximal) to have
>>>> some hot drink after pushing the button in Helsinki?
>>> As I said, the H-guy can expect to drink two cups of coffee.
>> Once again, some amplification of the this answer is perhaps in order. I
>> cannot answer your question with a Yes/No as you wish because the question
>> is basically dishonest -- of the form of "Have you stopped beating your
>> wife yet?". The question contains an implicit assumption that the
>> differentiation takes place.
> Not at all. Question 1 is neutral on this, but if you prefer I split
> question 1 into two different questions.
> Question 1a.
> The H-guy is told that the coffee is offered *in* the reconstitution
> boxes, and that it has the same taste. Put it differently, we ensure that
> the differentiation has not yet occurred.
> And the question 1a is the same, assuming he is a coffee addict, and that
> he wants drink coffee as soon as possible, should he worried, knowing the
> protocol telling the coffee is offered, or can he argue that he is not
> worried, and that if comp is true and everything go well, P("drinking
> coffee") = 1?
> Question 1b
> Same question, but now, the coffee is offered after the opening of the
> doors.
> Since it is this differentiation that is in question, the question is
>> disingenuous: it can only be answered as I have done above.
> Oh nice! The Helsinki guy, as a coffee addict, is very please you tell him
> that he will drink two cups of coffee.

If this kind of connection can be made, then you play right into the hands
of the people who accuse you or your work to be "anything goes". And I say
this because I believe your work has some merit to it, when you're not
trying to shove it down people's throat a la "WHAT IS YOUR THEOLOGY?" in
setting of a public list.

The kind of pushiness of late, tactics of flooding the list with posts
where you set discussion forcibly, and explicitly demanding your questions
to be answered seem to paint a picture where you abandon your own
convictions: modesty, avoidance of blasphemy, use of linguistic games where
only you can set the frame, argument from authority etc. I liked the old
Bruno from 2015 better who didn't need to resort to these things to make a

Particularly the cheap way of trying to ensnare people into discussing your
research interests. So obvious and so out of character, it makes one wonder
as to your general welfare. Play nice, folks! Take care of yourselves. PGC

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to