On 30 Sep 2017, at 11:40, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
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).
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?
Because that is non determinable from the first person point of you.
Here Terren won the point. (Like if this could change anything in
your attitude alas).
Or better, you should like this: because that ONE stream of
consciousness is in Moscow AND Washington, in the 3p view, and that it
remains a ONE from the 1p view of both those copies.
You were just abstracting away from the difference between first
person, subjective, view, and a third person description of those
first person views. You always move from the 1p view to some 3p view
of the 1p view. You should not. It is that move which makes the
question appearing senseless. The use of the diaries prevents that
moves, which might the reason why you refuse to use them, showing that
your problem is not the argument, but something else.
Bruno
Bruno
> 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-
l...@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.
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.
