On 24 Sep 2017, at 20:02, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
>> We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw
Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw Moscow.
> That contradicts the identity criteria on which we have
agreed.
What agreed on identity criteria does that
violate? The only identity criteria I remember agreeing
to is "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow.
You have agreed that the Moscow Man (like the Washington Man) is an
honorable Helsinki Man survivor. The Moscow man is the Helsinki man,
like the Washington Man is the Helsinki Man. Yes, the Helsinki man is
in two places, but the point is that he does not feel that way. In
both places, he feels like being in only once city, as nobody can feel
to be in two places at once with computationalism and that protocol.
> The answer is simply: I expect [...]
Simple indeed if one refuses to consider just what "I" means and
what the consequences of stepping into a "I" duplicating
machine would be, but not simple in a good way.
"I" is the usual indexical. You can duplicate it in the 3-1 picture,
but not in the 1p view, viewed from that 1p view.
> to find myself either in M or in W.
And it is so much simpler not to think about just what "myself"
means with regards to the future. Not thinking is easier than
thinking.
Yes, it is simpler to not answer the question asked, if the goal is to
not understand the conclusion of the reasoning.
>> and which THE first person experience are you talking about?
> All the unicity experience of all copies.
If its all of them why do you express surprise and claim that all
sorts of deep philosophical consequences can be drawn from the fact
that one and only one answer is insufficient to describe the fate of
several different things. How could it be otherwise?
> I remind you the criteria: all copies must confirms the
prediction rule in the finite duplication,
All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back in
Helsinki,
The prediction is asked to the Helsinki guy before the duplication.
The copies are the Helsinki guy, so they were asked too, as confirmed
in all the diaries and personal memories. When the M-man open his
diary in Moscow, he saw and remember his prediction written in the
diary.
only Bruno Marchal was asked the question yesterday back in
Helsinki; and we know today that Bruno Marchal ended up seeing both
cities.
... only in the 3-1p view. Nobody ends up seeing two cities from the
1p view.
Yes yes I know what you will say "you confuse the 1p and the 3p" but
you are the one who is confused, it is you who hasn't thought deeply
about what a people duplicating machine really means. If the body of
Bruno Marchal is duplicated there will still be only one conscious
entity if the two of them are in identical environments, it is only
when the environments differs, such as being in different cities,
that the two start to form different memories and become different
conscious beings. But you ask "Which one will become the Moscow
man?" and the answer of course is "the one the sees Moscow".
That does not help the Helsinki man, given that in helsinki he still
doesn't know if he will feel to be being the M-man or not.
Yes that's a trivial answer but then it was a trivial question, and
at least it's true just like all tautologies.
But can be false when used to predict "moscow" in helsinki.
> "THE" is used, because all those experience are incompatible
from the first pov.
Which THE first pov is "THE" incompatible with?
Both are incompatible with the view of their corresponding doppleganger.
>> THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE
first person experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow?
> Yes, that one. That has been said since the start.
That one? Which one? You quoted two.
Because both lives the unique experience of being in a unique city.
Each time you ask "which one lives the experience of seeing *the*
city", the answer is always the same: both, but only one from their
first person point of view. Indeed, that is the reason why in Helsinki
only "W v M" is correct.
Which first person experience Is Mr. You, which ONE is different
from all the others and uniquely deserves the noble title of "THE"?
> All of them deserves the title of "THE"
And that is why your notation has the precision of a dogs
breakfast.
Only because you subtract the key ingredient: the distinction between
1p and 3p.
>> We had agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw
Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw Moscow so obviously yesterday the
Moscow man DID NOT EXIST.
> That contradicts the identity criterion.
The identity criterion, what a joke! If "The Moscow man"
no longer means the man who saw Moscow then what does it mean?
It means also the man who saw Moscow and remember Helsinki and all his
life up to that duplication experience. The Helsinki man is the Moscow
man. he has not lost his identity, by the mechanist assumption.
I don't know why I bother to ask you, on Monday Wednesday and Friday
you say it means one thing, on Tuesday Thursday and Saturday you say
it means another thing, and on Sunday you're not quite sure.
Not at all. Since 40 years I have not change any of this, if only
because nobody has had any problem with this. Yes, some have taken
some month, and one took 4 years, but once they got the difference
between 1p and 3p, they got the point. Most people got it after 5
minutes.
Let me know if you know just one person who does not get this point.
>> But now you say "the Moscow man" did exist yesterday, so I
have no idea what you now mean by "the Moscow man" and you have
no idea either.
> That is ridiculous. As I said, the M-man is the H-man, when
he is in M.
If there is no difference between the Moscow man and the
Helsinki man then why did you give them different names?
Because the Moscow man is the Helsinki man when in Moscow, to
distinguish him from the Washington man, which is also the Helsinki
man, but in Washington.
If there is a difference but that difference is NOT that the Moscow
man has seen Moscow and Helsinki but the Helsinki man has only seen
Helsinki then what in the world is that difference? You've got to
get your notation straight and make it precise!
I do that, but you never quote the difference, nor take it into account.
> Please answer P(tea).
I don't like pee tea.
Emotions is not a valid way to reason. I guess that it means that you
see the point, but will never concede it.
Answer this before we proceed, please. Should the H-man expect or not
to drink tea when tea is promised to be given to both copies?
Bruno
>>> At that moment, you can consider them as fused. The
H-man is both of them,
>> Both? If there are two there must be a difference between
the H-man and the M-man,
> Not when seen as fused.
If they are identical then what would be the difference between
saying "there are two of them that are fused but both are
identical" to just saying "there is only one and nothing is
fused"? I can't see how there would be any difference, not from the
3p view and not from the 1p view either! So I ask yet again, now
that the Moscow man no longer means the man who saw Moscow what does
it mean? And is there a Tokyo man fused in there too? How about a
Chicago man?
>> He expects Santa Claus's workshop! I don't give
a damn what the H-man expects to happen tomorrow, but I do give
a damn about who remembers tomorrow being the H-man today.
> Both do.
Yes, and so the H-man ended up seeing 2 cities if "the H-man"
means remembering being the H-man, and that is the only definition
of the phrase that makes any sense to me. If you have a better
definition I'd love to hear it.
> But none is aware of the other in the first person way.
True but irrelevant.
>> There is not one and only one correct prediction if the
future includes use of a first person experience duplicating
machine!
> Then digital mechanism is obviously wrong,
Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT. And the proof that it is bullshit
is that nobody can say what that one and only one correct answer
turned out to be, not even after the duplicating experiment is long
over. Forget prediction, nobody can even make a postdiction about
that, but it's not because of any deep philosophical principle;
there is no answer because there was no question.
> Confusion 3p/1p.
Yeah yeah, just keep chanting that mindless mantra to
yourself over and over, that will solve all problems and lead you
onto the path to enlightenment.
> "you" is both copies.
Then asking which ONE city you will see would be a very very stupid
question. Actually it would be worse than that, it would not be a
question at all, it would just be noise made by the mouth.
> but the question is not who you are but who you feel to be.
Bruno Marchal just said " "you" is both copies" so
John Clark has no choice but to ask yet again WHO IS MR. YOU? Who
is Bruno Marchal asking who they feel , The Helsinki man, the Moscow
man or the Washington man?
> the answer is very simple:
Simple as in stupid.
> and it is obvious you cannot predict which one.
Which one what?? Nobody can make the prediction because
Bruno Marchal can't explain what is suposed to be predicted. Nobody
can give an answer if they don't know the question.
> we are wasting our time.
You may be right about that.
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 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.
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 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.
