On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This thought experiment must be analyzed from the first person perspective > There is no *THE* first person perspective if first person perspective duplicating machines exist!!!!! It's the same blunder over and over and over again. > > > (and by that I'm referring to the grammatical person > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person>). > I would bet money that the third grade English teacher that wrote that article did not have first person perspective duplicating machines in mind. > > > There is only one stream of consciousness, ever, > Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that one stream of consciousness is in Moscow or Washington? > > > despite the possibility of its bifurcation (no different from many-worlds) > In many-worlds the meaning of personal pronouns are always clear, in Bruno's thought experiment they never are. > > > The only reality a person experiences is the one inside their head. Thanks > to this, we never have to get into pronouns Then why is Terren Suydam unable to state Terren Suydam 's ideas without the constant use of personal pronouns and the misuse of articles like "the" and "a"? > > You seem to have a hang-up that prevents you from adopting that perspective > My hang-up is I don't know what perspective you're talking about and neither do you. > > > you compulsively return to questions about the objective reality, > Objective reality is important but subjective reality is even more important. There is only one objective reality but there are billions of subjective realities, so a question about subjective reality needs to specify which one it's referring to, and the way English grammar uses personal pronouns just can't do that if people duplicating machines are in the mix. > > > talking in terms of multiple consciousnesses, > How can I not talk about multiple consciousnesses if you're talking about people duplicating machines? > > > and getting confused about the referents of grammatical conventions. > I plead guilty to that charge, I am VERY confused about what you're talking about because you're using grammatical conventions just as people have been using for centuries, but for centuries there has been no people duplicating machines. A century ago "What one and only one city will I see tomorrow?" was a real question with a real answer because the meaning of the personal pronoun "I" was clear, but a century from now "Tomorrow I will see one and only one city after I have become two, what is the name of that one city I will see?" would just be ridiculous. Is it really your position that the English language will need no modification on how it uses personal pronouns even after people duplicating machines become common? > > > And you blame that gibberish on the thought experiment itself, > If it's not gibberish then what in the world is the above "question" asking? Who is the referent to the personal pronoun "I" in the phrase " I will see tomorrow " if "I" am to be duplicated today? > > > you've lost the plot. > Gibberish has no plot. > > > If you want to continue this, great, but I'm not going to go around in > circles > You could still participate, you could just do what Bruno does and chant the mantra "you confuse the 3p and the 1p", that won't take up much of your time. 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.
