On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I use "I" because there is no ambiguity, > Then prove it, replace "I" with "Bruno Marchal" and see how far "you" get in a world that contains "I" duplicating machines. > > > given the definition given, and it is useful to remind that the experience > is on the future 1p. > And there we go again with "the future 1p" ; it hasn't happened yet and nobody knows for sure what it will be like, so what does the future have to do with the sense of self experienced right now? > > I just refuse to use the proper noun, because it introduces the slope > toward the 3_1 view, > Bruno Marchal uses the personal pronoun and refuses to use the proper noun it refers to, even though Bruno claims it is unambiguous so would be easy to do so, because assuming the very thing the proof is supposed to prove is the only way Bruno Marchal can get the "proof" to work . And casually slipping in a personal pronoun in a "proof" about unique personal identity in a world that contains personal identity duplicating machines is a good way to sneak the conclusion of the "proof" into the very beginning of the "proof". > > I just refuse to help you in building your rhetorical trick. > There is another name for " rhetorical trick s", logic. > >> >> John Clark does not know what "*THE* >> ** >> 1p experience >> >> " means if there are >> >> 2^(16180 * 10000) * (60 * 90) * 24 John Clarks. >> As said before, the setup is clear but the question is not. >> > > > > It is all experiences obtained, > If all experience it then the term "*THE* ** 1p experience" can differentiate nothing and thus conveys ZERO information and is a utter waste of time to talk about. >> >> >> Then you will have no difficulty in proving that simply by retiring the >> personal pronoun "I" and always using the proper noun instead in all future >> thought experiments! > > > > > I did, > You must have done that in that mythical unicorn post I've been hearing about for nearly a decade but have somehow been unable to find, the post that demolished my position completely. > > > and will not repeat. > I am not one bit surprised. And so that post joins UFOs, ESP, Bigfoot, and the Lost Dutchman's Gold Mine. > > we use only a third person notion of "I" > Nobody knows what a third person notion of "I" means, and that includes Bruno Marchal. > > > (the content of the diary taken in the duplication box), and so anyone can > verify the reasoning just by 3p logical derivation. > To be useful, after the duplication either the Washington man alone or the Moscow man alone would have had to be the author of the diary. if you say they both wrote it (or if you say neither wrote it) then the book can't differentiate between the two and it contains no information about either of them. Thus there is no point in the damn diary in the thought experiment. 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.
