On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ah yes that mythical magical post that you've been talking about for >> years, the wonderful post where you logically refute all my points and make >> your theory crystal clear with no circularity or ambiguity, the post that >> is, unfortunately, as hard to find >> as >> the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns, >> or >> the >> >> pot of gold at the end of >> >> a >> >> rainbow. > > > > > You know why it's hard to find? Because every time that post shows up you: > > go silent; > wait a certain amount of time; > > come back to the beginning of the loop. > > That's why.
*BULLSHIT!!* Prove me wrong, find the Loch Ness Monster , find this wonderful post that proves that the personal pronoun "you" can be used without ambiguity in the future perfect tense even if a "you" duplicating machine is going to be used on "you" in the future. Show me the post that explains why the question "what one and only one city will you see in the future after you have been duplicated?" can have one and only one answer. And after that show me the magical unicorn of a post that says which of the two cities "you" end up seeing. Was the one and only one correct answer Moscow or Washington? You seem very familiar with this mysterious post that I "go silent" about, so it shouldn't take you long to find it. I await your reply with eagerness. > > How to talk about first-person experience vs. third-person theory You tell me. > > > with > > someone who is fixated on pronoun legalese? Legalese my ass. If you claim to have a scientific theory you should be able to clearly explain it without circularity and do it with AT LEAST as little ambiguity as a lawyer can argue his case at the Supreme Court. The entire point of Bruno's paper is to explore the relationship between the first-person experience and the third-person, and yet on page 1 he already throws around a word like "you" as if the matter has already been settled, even when "you" is about to walk into a "you" duplicating machine. Bruno is starting with the very thing he's trying to prove, from page 1 line 1 Bruno is assuming the "you" duplicating machine can't really duplicate EVERYTHING about "you" only some of the things. Bruno assumes that there is some mysterious thing called "1-p you" that can't be duplicated, the "1-p you" is of course just a euphemism for "soul". I do admit if one starts with the assumption that the soul exists then it's easy to conclude the soul exists, but I can find no reason to doubt a you duplicating machine can duplicate everything about you including your soul, sorry I meant to say including your 1-p you. For a proof to be worth anything you need to get more out of it than you put in, even I can prove that the Ryman hypothesis is true if you let me start with the assumption that the Ryman hypothesis is true, but that is unlikely to earn me the Fields Medal. 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.
