Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​>> ​
>> before their ​specific experiences there were not two copies, neither
>> the Washington man nor the Moscow man existed, only the Helsinki man
>> existed. You can't make a prediction, or do anything else, *IF YOU DON'T
>> EXIST*!
>
>
> ​> ​
> That does not make sense to me.
>

​It makes no sense to me either! You complain that yesterday

​the Moscow man couldn't predict that he would see Moscow, but of course he
couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT EXIST. It was the very
act of seeing Moscow that turned the Helsinki man into the Moscow man, but
yesterday the Helsinki man COULD have predicted that and yesterday the
Helsinki man was the only one capable of predicting anything because
yesterday the Helsinki man was the only one that existed.

And as sure as day follows night you will come back with "in the 3p view
not the 1p" as if that chant explains everything. What does it even mean?
Who exactly is the prediction about? Who do you wan't to make the
prediction and lament that he can not? And who is Mr He??  ​And while your
at at, please explain what on earth expectations or predictions have to do
with consciousness or the computational theory of mind.


> ​> ​
> That would refute the coin throwing statistics too.
>

​
Damn right!  Coin throwing statistics
​are​
 logical and
​it all ​
makes perfect sense, your thought experiment is dreadfully inconsistent and
is filled with pronouns with no clear referent. At one point "he" seems to
refer (although I could be wrong) to the person currently experiencing
Moscow but a few word later in the same sentence "he" seems to refer to the
person that will experience Moscow tomorrow and a few words later "he"
seems to be someone who expects to
​
experience Moscow
​
tomorrow and a few words later "he" seems to be someone tomorrow who
remembers seeing Helsinki today and a few words later "he" seems to be
someone
​
who will experience
​
Washington
​
tomorrow
​
and a few words later "he" seems to be
​


And then you ask a
​ ​
nonsense question
​ ​
like "What one and only one thing will **he** see tomorrow after **he**
becomes two?" or even worse "What one and only one thing will **he**
​ ​
*expect *to see tomorrow after **he** becomes two?"
​ ​P
eas just ain't going
​be enough ​
to fix
​monumental flaws like that.​


> ​> ​
> We agreed that the W-man and the M-man are the Helsinki man,
>

​No we don't agree! I think "the Helsinki  man" means anybody​

​tomorrow who remembers being the Helsinki man today, so obviously if
that's what the phrase means then the Helsinki man will see 2 cities
tomorrow. But you insist the Helsinki man will see only one city tomorrow,
so you must mean something else by by "​
the Helsinki man
​" but I have no idea what that is.
​


> ​> ​
> So there is no guy who ever cease to exist.
>

​But there are 2 guys who haven't come into existence yet​ because they
won't see their respective cities until tomorrow, so it's a little unfair
to ask them to make predictions because nonexistence rather severely
handicaps ones predictive ability.

​> ​
> Do you agree that in the case you are told (you, the guy in Helsinki,
> before duplication) that  the two copies will be offered a cup of tea in W
> and in M, you can predict in Helsinki that after you push on the button,
> you will drink a cup of tea?


​John Clark can neither agree nor disagree with that until Bruno Marchal
explains if "you" is only the guy currently in Helsinki today or if "you"
 includes guys who tomorrow will remember being in Helsinki today.

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.

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Sep 2017, at 04:21, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​Both copies saw only one city,

​Yes.​

​>​and both were unable to predict in advance which one they  
would feel to see.


​Unable to predict in advance​ who would see what? ​Today I can  
predict what one and only one city the Moscow man will see tomorrow  
and today I can predict what one and only one city the ​ 
Washington​ man will see tomorrow​ and, depending on what you  
mean by "the Helsinki ​man",  I can predict that too. I honestly  
don't know what more there is to predict.


​> ​The point is that the two copies were not able to predict  
their specific experience.


​That's because before their ​specific experiences there were not  
two copies, neither the Washington man nor the Moscow man existed,  
only the Helsinki man existed. You can't make a prediction, or do  
anything else, IF YOU DON'T EXIST!



That does not make sense to me. That would refute the coin throwing  
statistics too. We agreed that the W-man and the M-man are the  
Helsinki man, as we suppose we survive teleportation and duplication.  
So there is no guy who ever cease to exist. Only their situations  
differentiate.





​> ​which is the criteria for verifying a prediction of a first  
person experience?


​By far the most important ​criteria needed to verify a  
prediction is to make it clear and unambiguous which first person  
experience the prediction is all about, and that you have not even  
come close to doing. Is it the first person experience of the person  
that will experience Moscow tomorrow, or the first person experience  
of the person that will experience Washington tomorrow, or the first  
person experiences of the people tomorrow who remember being in  
Helsinki today?


​> ​Mr His is both the W-guy and the M-guy for any third person  
looking at the experience from outside.


​And Mr His is the W-guy from the W-guy's  first person  
experience ​and ​ Mr His is the M-guy from the M-guy's ​ first  
person experience​. So I ask again for the 999th time, who is the  
prediction supposed to be about?​


​> ​You just need to make precise

​I don't need to do that, you do. And I know your mantra, you chant  
it all the time as if it will solve all problems "you confuse the 1p  
and the 3p"; but is it really surprising I'm confused when you  
demand people predict things BEFORE they exist??​


​> ​But from Mr. His' personal view point after the duplication,  
he​ [...]


​And that is a great example of what needs to be made precise. Are  
you talking about ​ Mr. His personal view point ​in Moscow or ​ 
Mr. His' personal view point ​in Washington?​ Yesterday when  
there was only one who was the prediction supposed to be about?


​​>> ​Then the question is of no scientific of philosophic  
significance


​> ​You could have said this before

​I have said it before!

​> ​as it has always been that same question.

​No there are two​ things involved. You ask what some bozo  
expects to happen​,​ and that is of no scientific​ ​or​  
philosophic significance​ whatsoever but at least it's a real  
question with a real answer. ​But you also say "What one and only  
one city will you see after you have been duplicated and become  
two?" and that is not a question, that is just a sequence of words  
that ends with a question mark at the end, so obviously there is no  
answer to it.

 ​
​>> ​A far far more profound question than "Where do you expect  
he will live?" is "Where will he live?" or even better "Today where  
are the people who remember being in Helsinki yesterday?".  ​


​> ​That is the 3p question.

​OK then please explain ​exactly what the 1p question is and how  
it differs from the 3p question.


​> ​the person undergoing the split cannot feel the split, nor  
predict his self-localization measurement.


The Moscow man can't predict anything before his localization  
measurement​ because before he sees Moscow the Moscow man did not  
exist, and its very hard to make good predictions if you don't exist.


​> ​The point is that you cannot predict in Helsinki if you will  
be the Moscow man *from your first person subjectyive experience".  
(and there are no problem with pronouns here).


​If there are no problem with pronouns then please explain what one  
and only one thing "you" tomorrow means if I am to be duplicated  
today.  ​


​>> ​The only reason more can't be predicted is because you can't  
say exactly what it is you want predicted.


​> ​That is not correct. "it" refers to the very precise outcome  
"I open the door and see W" and "I open the door and see M".


​Well OK then, you just correctly predicted the very thing that you  
said could not be predicted.​


​> ​It is isomorphic to the coin throwing.

​Nope, not even close. Tomorrow everybody can say with 100%  
certainty how the coin flip turned out, but tomorrow everybody will  
be as clueless as they are today