On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Then which *ONE* out of that infinite number is >> "*THE"* >> stream of consciousness >> > > > ? > You're asking that question from the objective, third-person point of > view, which is not relevant to the thought experiment. > I remind you that it was you not me that said to understand the though experiment I need to follow *"THE* *"* stream of consciousness , but which steam needs following, the Moscow stream or the Washington stream? If I ask you for directions and you say "just keep following this road" and then the road forks your instructions don't help me get to my intended destination. > > > If you want to engage with the thought experiment, then you must consider > this from the first person. > Over and over and over again the exact same mistake is made. In a world with Terren Suydam duplicating machines there is no such thing as *"THE"* first person! >> >> I don't know about Mr. You but >> Terren Suydam >> can >> experience more than one city at the same time >> if there are >> Terren Suydam >> duplicating machines. >> > > > > Objectively, yes. Experientially, no. > I have no idea what that means because I have proof that Terren Suydam experienced Moscow and Terren Suydam experienced Washington. What Mr. You experienced nobody knows, not even Mr. You. >> >> Terren Suydam >> just said a infinite number of copies were made, and every single one >> of them remembers wondering what one and only one city they would end up >> seeing. So what turned out to be the one and only one correct answer to the >> question asked yesterday "What city will I see tomorrow ?" If the answer >> isn't just unknown but is nonexistent then it wasn't a question. >> > > > > Objectively, it may be gibberish, > There is no "may" about it. > > > but from the first-person point of view, it's not. > Then what one and only one city ended up being seen by *"THE* *"* first-person point of view ?? If it's not gibberish then there is a answer, so let's have it! > > > Earlier we encountered a different question that was gibberish from the > objective point of view, but intelligible from the first-person point of > view. > I don't know what you're referring to but* "* *THE" * first-person point of view is itself not intelligible if first-person point of view duplicating machines exist, and in this thought experiment they do. 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.
