On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I don't know what you're talking about, I haven't even figured out what >> "the 1p view" is supposed to be much less agreed that such a thing exists. >> >> > > > > Then you suffer from amnesia, or it is just a peak in your bad faith > attitude. In the UDA, the first person is described by the content of the > personal diary > > (the one which is duplicated in the experience as the candidate takes it > with him in the "cut and copy" box. > Talk about amnesia! Just last post you said the 2 step out of the person duplicating booth with identical memories and holding identical diaries, so bad faith or not I haven't figured out which one of the two has "*THE* 1p view" and its clear you haven't figure that out either. > >> Which of the 2 has *THE* 1p view? > > > > > Of course, both. > Then it can't distinguish between the 2, then science has no use for "*THE* 1p view" and it's just a waste of time. > > > Since day one, we have agreed that both copies have an 1-view, and it is > *the* 1-view in each of those perspective. And for that very reason from day one in Bruno Marchal's very elaborate "you" duplicating experiment where predictions about "you" and "*THE *1p view" are made in nearly every sentence John Clark has been asking which of the two who step out that "you" duplicating machine Bruno Marchal is referring too. If it's both the the fancy duplicating machine serves no purpose and is just a pointless distraction and neither the words "you" or " *THE *1p view" contain any information. > > But the two identical brains bemongs to two different cities, so when > they open the door of the reconstitution boxes, each brain imprint quite > different input (indeed, one is W, the other is M). It is *because* the > brains are 100% identical, and then differentiate, that the H-Guy, or the > one in > > > the reconstitution boxes before the > o > pening of the door, cannot predict the specific city they will find > themselves in. > Cannot predict? But you just correctly predicted it and so can the man (singular) in the boxes (plural). The M guy will be the one that sees M and the W guy will be the one that sees W. Where is the mystery? There is nothing else to predict. I don't remember if it was step 3 or not but it was at this point I stopped reading your "proof". >> >> >> If they have differentiated that means the way the atoms >> are arranged in the 2 brains are no longer identical, therefore what those >> 2 brains are doing (mind) is also no longer identical, so it would be >> correct to say there are now two separate conscious beings. > > > > > Exactly. And both are the H-guy. > Yes both are the H-guy because both remember seeing H, but only one of them is also the W-guy because only one of them also remembers W. So which one will be the W-guy? The one that will see W of course. You may say that is a stupid answer and you'd be right, but then it was a stupid question. Nevertheless there is no mystery in any of this and everything has been correctly predicted. > > > It is the usual failure of the Leibniz identity rule. > T he Leibniz identity rule applies to identical things, so exchanging the two after the duplication but before the doors are opened would make no difference to them or to the universe, but after the doors are opened they are no longer identical so exchanging them would make a difference. But Leibniz wasn't dumb enough to say his rule applied to things that were different. > >>> >>> The qualia, conscious part of the experience, is true, but unexpressible. >> >> >> >> >> Then why why why do you write post after post expressing your opinion on >> the nature of consciousness?? >> >> Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein >> >> had good advice when he said " >> >> What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence >> ". >> > > > What was Wittgenstein talking about? > I thought that was self evident what Wittgenstein was talking about, it was was things " *we cannot speak*". And according to what you say above that would include unexpressible things like "*the qualia, conscious part of the experience*" . > > See the math part of how this paradoxical state of affair is solved by > [...] > There is nothing to solve because there is nothing paradoxical. A "you" duplicating machine would create a lot of very strange situations unlike anything we see in ordinary life, but none of them would be paradoxical, they'd just be odd. > >> >> You're talking about consciousness and belief is a subjective emotional >> state with little or no relationship with proof, just look at any religious >> believer. > > > > > "belief" in the mundane sense is not used with the same meaning than > "belief" in religion. > I think it's the same thing, it's only a question of how strong the evidence needs to be for someone to believe it; a logician may believe that a mathematical relation is true because the proof seems pretty ironclad, but he is always willing to entertain the possibility, however remote, that the proof contains a error he failed to see. However for everyday people and even for mathematicians when they're not thinking about mathematics there is usually a inverse relationship between the intensity of belief and the evidence in support of it, and if there is actual evidence that the belief is false then the belief it is true is the strongest of all. Just listen to a 5 minute conversation about religion or politics and see what I mean, the scientific method plays no part whatsoever. >> >> When the doors are opened one sees Moscow and the other sees Washington > > > > > Exactly. That is why we have a prediction exercise to solve. > Exactly? Then exactly what is the prediction being sought and exactly who is the prediction about? Please don't use personal pronouns in response to this unless the personal pronoun duplicating machine is removed from the thought experiment, then you can use personal pronouns all you want. If the referent is always crystal clear as you claim it should be a easy matter to humor me and simply use the referent and not the personal pronoun, the only downside is you'd have to type a few more letters but I think your fingers could take the wear and tear. > > > It is equivalent with the H-guy saying that he will not see two cities at > once, which makes the point. > If the referent to the personal pronoun "he" in the above was "the H-guy" then the prediction turned out not to be true, but if the referent was something else then it could be true, and that ambiguity will always happen if sloppy personal pronouns are used around a personal pronoun duplicating machine. And that makes my point. > > > The prediction is about what will be seen after the self-localization is > made, of course. > What is "*THE* self-localization " and which one of the two has it? 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.
