On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 6:06:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Dec 2019, at 22:46, John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:59 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> For the 998th time, given that in Bruno's scenario a first person >>> experience duplicating machine is invoked there is no such thing as *THE >>> *first person experience; >> >> >> *> There is. It is what you can expect to feel when doing the experience.* >> > > Bruno Marchal would be utterly lost without his best friend, good old > Mr.You. > > >> > *In Helsinki, you believe that you will survive (because* [...] >> > > In Helsinki John Clark can make a educated guess about what will happen to > John Clark tomorrow, but no living thing has a clue what Mr.You's fate will > be because thanks to Bruno's "You Duplicating Machine" nobody has a clue > who Mr.You is. > > *> you know that it is impossible in Helsinki to write its name in the >> first person* [...] >> > > In a world that contains a "THE Duplicating Machine" there is no such > thing as "THE first person" > > >> *> The first “he” is the guy, when unique, in Helsinki.* >> > > If that's what it means then "he" will not survive because tomorrow nobody > will be unique in Helsinki because tomorrow nobody will be in Helsinki. > That doesn't contradict Mechanism it just shows that you've made yet > another goofy definition and I'm sure it won't be your last. > > >> *> The second “he” refers to each copies’ first person experience >> accessible* >> > > And now in addition to goofiness we have ambiguity, the same personal > pronoun referring to two different people. > > >> *> So now, move to step 4* >> > > You must be joking! > > >> It's impossible to say if that's true or not because nobody knows what >>> question was asked, certainly Bruno doesn’t. >> >> >> *> The question is simple,* >> > > The question is not simple, the question is retarded. > > * > and most people get the answer by themselves* >> > > Most people, including a certain Mr.Marchal, just assumes that articles > "the" and "a" and common personal pronouns can keep on being used in > exactly the same way as they always have been even in the presence of > something that has never existed before like a "Matter Duplicating > Machine", a "People Duplicating Machine", a "First Person View Duplicating > Machine", a "THE Duplicating Machine". And a few years ago John Clark would > have just assumed that a professional logician would know better than to > make the same sort of silly mistake that most people make, but John Clark's > assumption turned out to be wrong. > > >> If the referent is the man that is experiencing H right now on >>> December 9 then obviously even without duplicating machines we can say with >>> absolute certainty "you" will not survive tomorrow because on December 10 >>> nobody will be experiencing H on December 9. >> >> >> *> Nobody has ever considered such useless identity criterion.* >> > > *WHAT?! *You said just a few lines before that "*The first “he” is the > guy, when unique, in Helsinki*."! > > >> But if we take the everyday meaning of the personal pronoun, somebody >>> who remembers being the H man of December 9, then "you" will survive in >>> December 10. >> >> >> *> That’s far better.* >> > > Yes, but December 10 is after the duplication so the personal pronoun "he" > is now open to more than one meaning, in other words "he" is ambiguous. >> >> > >> And if a you duplicating machine is thrown into the mix then the "you" >>> as used in the above is ambiguous >> >> >> *> No it is not. We have agreed that both copies have the right identity. >> * >> > > Sometimes John agrees with Bruno for half a sentence but then in the > second half Bruno contradicts the first half. If today both remember being > the Helsinki man yesterday and that is when the question was asked, and if > today, to nobody's surprise, both answer to the name Mr.You, then yesterday > it would be ambiguous to ask about what Mr.You would or would not see on > the next day. If that's not a example of ambiguity what is? > > >> > *It is just that the prediction is impossible to make. * >> > > If you've found something where the prediction is impossible and the > postdiction is impossible too then what you have found is not profound, > it's just stupid. > > >>> *FROM THEIR FIRST PERSON VIEW, they did get one bit of information.* >>> >>> > > >> And what was that one bit of information that the W Man got? >>> >> That he ended up seeing W. >> >> >> *> Yes,* >> > > So the "experiment" provided zero bits of new information because > yesterday before the "experiment" everybody already knew that would happen, > even Mr.You (whoever that is) knew it because everybody knows that > tautologies are always true. > > > > > You keep confusing the indexical third person self, that in my thesis is > defined with the second recursion theorem, and the indexical first person > self, which know very well who he is, and, once he accept that he survives > a duplication, know that he survives in both places from a third person > view, but only in one non ambiguous place (Washington OR Moscow) from any > first person reality where surviving met the mechanist sense of surviving > such an experience. > > You put the indeterminacy into a tautology by ignoring the diverging > content of the 1p experience of the copies. You talk like if the guy could > feel to be in the two places at once, which is pure nonsense. > > When you agree that the guy in M does not feel to be the guy in W, and > vice versa, you need to just take into account that in H, he is unable to > write down in its diary (taken with him in the duplication experience) the > particular outcome he can expect, except using an “or” (I will feel myself > to be in W, or in M, but I cannot say which for now). That will be > confirmed by both, and that makes the point, if we don’t change the > definition, of course. > > Bruno > > >
I've realized that (in panpsychist/materialist view at least) there are no first-persons, second-persons, third-persons, fourth-persons, etc. That's all philosophical nonsense. Just selves (persons) in the midst of everything. @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fd055418-f5dc-47b1-bddf-da25e5a4c4e9%40googlegroups.com.
