On 31 Jul 2017, at 22:56, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 , Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are the one badmouthing Helsinki Clark, because you are
talking about him as if he were a zombie without his own view
of reality.
My hunch that Helsinki Clark is not a zombie is just as
strong as my hunch that Telmo Menezes is not a zombie, but no
stronger.
> Helsinki Clark is perfectly capable of making a bet about
what will happen next from his perspective.
I think I'm a better judge of what Helsinki Clark will do
than you are, so tell me what the bet is (that has never been clear)
Only because you eliminate the key nuance: the fact that the question
is about your 1-self, and not your 3-self. Translated in arithmetic,
your constant confusion (which honestly seems intentional) is the
confusion between between "provable(p)" and "provable(p) & true(p)".
and who picks the winners and losers and what criteria they use
to do so and I'll tell you if Helsinki Clark will take the bet or
not.
All copies have to look at what they have written in the diary when in
Helsinki. If you wrote in Helsinki "W", the W-guy will confirm the
prediction, and the M-guy will refute it, and, with the definition
given, and computationalism (which forces us to consider both being
genuine surviving 3p-self), it means that the prediction was not
correct. Only "W v M" will be correct.
> he knows that we all experience reality from our own
perspectives,
Yes.
> and that this will lead to a moment in whatever thing is
this that we call reality where he will have first-person
(subjective) experiences of winning the bet. Or losing the
bet.
Not if the bet was never made and a bet can't be made if nobody
knows what the bet is.
> Moscow Clark will experience winning the bet
Then Washington Clark must have lost the bet. What was he lacking?
More important what was the bet?.
> Context-dependency IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF PRONOUNS.
Yes, depending on context sometimes pronouns have meaning and
sometimes they do not, and in a world with people duplicating
machines its far easier to write a sentence in which they do not.
Yes, just throw away the nuance between 1p and 3p. But if you take
into account the precisions, everything is crystal clear for everybody
(except you for unknown reason, as you never criticize the reasoning,
but your own version where the precisions are eliminated.
> Even everything-list-Clark knows this, in fact he keeps
saying that one's subjective experience is the probably important
thing in the universe, and I agree
Then you agree that in thought experiments involving subjectivity
it's important to get it right.
And we already have duplication machines, we call them uterus.
Don't be ridiculous.
That is not ridiculous. We all come, very plausibly, from a unique
"amoeba" cells. I discovered "computationalism" and its main
consequences by looking at amoebas. But then I discovered that the
concept was already in arithmetic (in Gödel's 1931 paper) and decide
to do mathematics instead of biology. Molecular biology illustrates
that "nature" has "bet" (unintentionally I guess) on Mechanism already.
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.
