Re: A riddle for John Clark

stions which give different answers because they involve different situations. You conflate the two. Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:54 -0500 Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark From: jasonre...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, John Clark

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: An uploaded mind is running within a computer process. If the mind presses > a button inside its virtual environment, the process will fork and if > within the simulation of the child process a light within the virtual > environment will flash

Re: A riddle for John Clark

ybe this is how "heaven" works as well? -Original Message- From: Jason Resch To: Everything List Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2015 4:44 pm Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, John Clark wrote:

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction can't even be >>> described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the experiment and >>> compile statistics from it and then c

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction can't even be >> described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the experiment and >> compile statistics from it and then compare the number obtained from >> experiment with the theoret

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > UDA is for the babies ​And so are pompous homemade acronyms. 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 fro

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > ​> ​ >> You agreed already that a conscious uploaded mind in a process that forks >> and diverges is from the uploaded mind's point of view, an experience >> indistinguishable from funda

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > You agreed already that a conscious uploaded mind in a process that forks > and diverges is from the uploaded mind's point of view, an experience > indistinguishable from fundamental randomness. > ​ ​ > If it is indistinguishable from ran

Re: A riddle for John Clark

rature without arguments at all. Bruno I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200 On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chri

Re: A riddle for John Clark

ave to > do that bit. I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit > harder. > > -------------- > From: marc...@ulb.ac.be > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200 > > > On 27

RE: A riddle for John Clark

ou have to do that bit. I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200 On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno [John] &g

RE: A riddle for John Clark

em for you. You have to do that bit. Personally, I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200 On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chr

Re: A riddle for John Clark

has introduced an asymmetry, and that they each got one bit of information. Bruno From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:52:22 +0200 On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:03, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM,

RE: A riddle for John Clark

resolve the bet because I don't know who "you" is. MWI is decoherent where Bruno is incoherent? From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:04:56 + @ Bruno [John] >> >> Br

RE: A riddle for John Clark

. You are saying it is true and false that "you will see only one city". This has nothing to do with 1-p, 3-p, p-p confusions but is a direct consequence of how you define your terms, Bruno. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:03, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber ​is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the personal pronoun is not ambiguous because

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 24 Jul 2015, at 18:33, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​John Clark knows that's not exactly what was asked but if a better definition of "you" is given a better answer will be provided. ​> ​It has been given, and we have agreed on it. ​

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ > ​>> ​ > Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber > ​is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the personal > pronoun is not ambiguous because although there are 2 bodies they are > identi

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> John Clark knows that's not exactly what was asked but if a better >> definition of "you" is given a better answer will be provided. > > > ​> ​ > It has been given, and we have agreed on it. > ​We agreed ​(or I thought we had) ​ that

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:33, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Actually ​John Clark "pretends" that half the John Clark's who say "I bet ​Quentin Anciaux will see spin up when the electron is measured" will win the bet. ​> ​Actually John Clark

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 23 Jul 2015, at 18:58, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear what ​"the probability" refers to; the probability of *who* seeing spin up? ​> ​Oh, You said us that in the MWI there were

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 21:44, "John Clark" a écrit : > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > ​ >>> >>> ​>> ​ >>> Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber ​is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the personal pronoun is not ambi

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​ > ​>> ​ >> Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber >> ​is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the personal >> pronoun is not ambiguous because although there are 2 bodies they are >>

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 19:33, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> > Actually ​John Clark "pretends" that half the John Clark's who say "I bet ​Quentin Anciaux will see spin up when the electron is measured" will win the bet. >> >> ​> ​ >> Actual

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Actually ​John Clark "pretends" that half the John Clark's who say "I bet > ​Quentin Anciaux will see spin up when the electron is measured" will win > the bet. > ​> ​ > Actually John Clark can say the same thing betting that after duplic

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear what ​"the >> probability" refers to; the probability of *who* seeing spin up? > > > ​> ​ > Oh, You said us that in the MWI there were no problem as the copies cannot > met,

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 17:58, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >> No he did not. He >> ​[Quentin means John Clark. I think] ​ >> pretends probabilities do have meaning in MWI. When he says 0.5 with his bet > > Actually ​John Clark "pretends" that half

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>>>​ >> Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results > > ​>> ​ > Yes, provided that "you" means somebody who remembers being > ​ > Quentin Anciaux > ​ > at this instant. MWI says everything that doesn't violate the laws of

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > ​> ​ > No he did not. He > ​[Quentin means John Clark. I think] ​ > pretends probabilities do have meaning in MWI. When he says 0.5 with his > bet > > Actually ​John Clark "pretends" that half the John Clark's who say "I bet > ​Quentin Anciaux will

Re: A riddle for John Clark

own because few physicists dare to think on Gödel's theorem (especially after Penrose), and few logicians knows about Everett. Well, there are other factors which are more contingent. The point is that computationalism explains that 3p-determinism entails 1p-indeterminism. Bruno

Re: A riddle for John Clark

m not brainy enough to say. But I am brainy enough to see that he doesn't take the Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it doesn't exist. > > > ____ > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200 > Subject: RE: A r

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 23 Jul 2015, at 00:19, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​So you're claiming that the probability of seeing spin up while doing a measurement of the spin is one (likewise seeing spin down) right? ​That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 22 Jul 2015, at 22:15, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results ​Yes, provided that "you" means somebody who remembers being​ Quentin Anciaux​ at this instant. MWI says everything that

Re: A riddle for John Clark

t Wallace does is tackle incoherence head on. Does he over come it? Im not brainy enough to say. But I am brainy enough to see that he doesn't take the Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it doesn't exist. Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 23 Jul 2015, at 01:25, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or t

RE: A riddle for John Clark

ugh to say. But I am brainy enough to see that he doesn't take the Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it doesn't exist. > > > ____ > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200 > Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark

RE: A riddle for John Clark

ugh to see that he doesn't take the Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it doesn't exist. Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200 Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark From: allco...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Le 23 juil. 2015 05:

RE: A riddle for John Clark

nt. Go figure! Who would ever have guessed determinism and chance were difficult to marry... Then you're refuting MWI as not being able to correctly renders the probabilities, right? Is measuring spin up under MWI has a probability of one or 0.5 under MWI? Quentin > > __________

RE: A riddle for John Clark

ifficult to marry... Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com From: meeke...@verizon.net Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:25:00 -0700 On 7/22/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:4

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/22/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or the other. You will need a long neck to atten

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > ​> ​ > So you're claiming that the probability of seeing spin up while doing a > measurement of the spin is one (likewise seeing spin down) right? > > ​That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear what ​"the probability" refers to; the prob

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 22 juil. 2015 22:15, "John Clark" a écrit : > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> ​> ​ >> Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results > > > ​ > Yes, provided that "you" means somebody who remembers being So you're claiming that the probability of

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ​> ​ > Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results ​ Yes, provided that "you" means somebody who remembers being ​ Quentin Anciaux ​ at this instant. MWI says everything that doesn't violate the laws of physics will happ

RE: A riddle for John Clark

here is 1 person and then that person in each city. You are not betting on a flicked coin you are placing bets on red and black and then spinning a roulette wheel. > > ________________ > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:02:58 -0400 > > Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark >

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 22 Jul 2015, at 03:18, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 chris peck wrote: ​> ​Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be exclusive by definition . ​I agree that it all depends on definitions, in this case the definition of "I". If the definition

Re: A riddle for John Clark

"red and black", as P("red and black") = 0. Bruno Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:02:58 -0400 Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Two mutually exclusive first p

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 22 Jul 2015, at 00:02, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person experience. ​They can if the first person experience has ​been duplicated ​ because that's what the word "duplicated" means.

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or the other. You will need a long neck to attend a conference in Moscow, and a party in W

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 chris peck wrote: ​> ​ > Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be > exclusive by definition . > ​I agree that it all depends on definitions, in this case the definition of "I". If the definition of "I" is "somebody who remembers being John C

RE: A riddle for John Clark

8 -0400 Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person experience. ​They can if the first person experience has ​been d

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person > experience. > ​They can if the first person experience has ​been duplicated ​because that's what the word "duplicated" means. But of course ICT1PWT3P, > ​> ​ > So I gues

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or the other. You will need a long neck to attend a conference in Moscow, and a party in Washington. You can use a tele-vision system, an

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 21 Jul 2015, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2015, at 00:05, chris peck wrote: >> the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his experiences, and thus his experience content, which can only be "seeing one city among W

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/21/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2015, at 00:05, chris peck wrote: >> the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his experiences, and thus his experience content, which can only be "seeing one city among W and M", i.e. "W or M". nah. he can expect to

Re: A riddle for John Clark

n concerns the content of the experiences, not the content that we can attribute to them intellectually. Bruno From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:05:48 +0200 On 20 Jul 2015, at 01:17, John Clark wrote: O

RE: A riddle for John Clark

P(spin up & spin down) = 1, if you agree then fine. Quentin > > > From: marc...@ulb.ac.be > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark > Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:05:48 +0200 > > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 01:17, John Clark wrote:

RE: A riddle for John Clark

in Helsinki where he is just one man, but relative to this situation in Helsinki he WILL expect to have both experiences. And he will be right. Consequently, P(W || M) = 1. P(W & M) = 1. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Mon,

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 20 Jul 2015, at 01:17, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> T​he probability of he (or anyone, actually) *experiencing* one and only one city is one. ​If you want that statement to be true then "he" can't mean somebody who remembers being a man in Helsinki

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> T​ > he probability of he (or anyone, actually) **experiencing** one and only > one city is *one*. > ​If you want that statement to be true then "he" can't mean somebody who remembers being a man in Helsinki, you're going to have to change what "he"

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 18 Jul 2015, at 18:54, John Clark wrote: ​And if "he" means a being who remembers being a man in Helsinki, and Bruno Marchal​ has said more than once that is what is meant, then the probability of "he" experiencing ​one and only one city is zero. The probability of he (or anyone, act

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​I said it before I'll say it again, when talking about the future in a >> world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing as "*THE*" > > first person experience > ​, there is only "*A*" first person experience; > > > ​

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 16 Jul 2015, at 21:48, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> chris peck wrote:​ ​There is no contradiction here as Clark has pointed out with excruciating and what must amount to inhuman patience over many many years. Neither duplicate would concl

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> chris peck wrote:​ ​ >> There is no contradiction here as Clark has pointed out with excruciating >> and what must amount to inhuman patience over many many years. Neither >> duplicate would conclude that P(W & M) was 0 for their mutual anc

Re: A riddle for John Clark

g P(W v M) = 1, and P(W and M) = 0. Bruno From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:34:18 +0200 On 15 Jul 2015, at 18:08, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ ​>> ​one pla

RE: A riddle for John Clark

(W&M) with P(H)(W&M) and this is about P(H)(W&M). 1p 3p 1p-3p 3p-1p or even no pee pee. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:34:18 +0200 On 15 Jul 2015, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:On Wed, Jul 15

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 15 Jul 2015, at 18:08, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ ​>> ​one place plus​ ​one place equals two places. ​ ​>​But a place is a 3p notion. ​"I" is 1p ​ ​and I have a notion of place.​ Actually this contradicts your statement that consciousness is not lo

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> one place plus >> ​ ​ >> one place equals two places. ​ > > > ​>​ > But a place is a 3p notion. > ​"I" is 1p ​ ​and I have a notion of place.​ > ​> ​ > For the M-guy, the presence or absence of the W guy will not change > anything in it

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 14 Jul 2015, at 19:33, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​when the Helsinki guy is in the two cities, BOTH feels to be in once place. ​Yes, and one place plus one place equals two places. ​ But a place is a 3p notion. One first person experience + one

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > when the Helsinki guy is in the two cities, BOTH feels to be in once place. > ​Yes, and one place plus one place equals two places. ​ > ​> ​ > You interpret like if we were asking where the first person experience are > from a third person poi

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 14 Jul 2015, at 03:19, John Clark wrote: ​>>​ you just said BOTH the W-guy AND the M-guy are the H-guy. Yes, but after the split, they *FEEL* to be only one of them. ​That is irrelevant if they both are the H-guy, and you just said they are; It is relevant because the question is ask

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: But I do not accept “comp”. > > > You do accept comp by definition of comp. > ​"Comp" has a definition?? That's news to me, it's certainly not in any dictionary and from your usage ​I gathered it was just a sequence of ASCII characters that you liked to

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 12 Jul 2015, at 19:43, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​You know in Helsinki with certainty (accepting comp But I do not accept “comp”. You do accept comp by definition of comp. You might believe there is a flaw in comp => "reversal", bu

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:46 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> It's about continuity of consciousness above all else, and the labels >> change nothing about that. >> > > ​Labels > > ​are what ​gives meanings to words and all the argume

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ​> ​ > You know in Helsinki with certainty (accepting comp But I do not accept “comp”. > > I don't see any problem. Just play with words. Logic is playing with symbols according to certain rules, and words are symbols. > >>is that it

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 11 Jul 2015, at 19:34, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​there is no problem with the pronouns when you understand and apply the 1p and 3p distinction. ​The problem is that there is no such thing as "*THE* 1p",​ there is only "*A* 1p". T

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > ​> ​ > It's about continuity of consciousness above all else, and the labels > change nothing about that. > ​Labels ​are what ​gives meanings to words and all the arguments you have made on this list are made of words, so now you're sayin

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > there is no problem with the pronouns when you understand and apply the 1p > and 3p distinction. > ​The problem is that there is no such thing as "*THE* 1p",​ there is only "*A* 1p". Another problem is that it is never specified who i

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 10 Jul 2015, at 23:12, Terren Suydam wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:41 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: ​> ​Let's call them Helsinki Man, Helsinki-To-Moscow Man, and Helsinki-To-Washington Man. ​That's quite a mouthful but OK. So th

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 10 Jul 2015, at 20:21, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so easily that Bruno doesn't even seem to realize that Bruno is using them;​ ​it's like breathing, thought is required for

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:41 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Let's call them Helsinki Man, Helsinki-To-Moscow Man, and >> Helsinki-To-Washington Man. >> > > ​That's quite a mouthful but OK. So the answer to the question "what city > w

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: ​> ​ > Let's call them Helsinki Man, Helsinki-To-Moscow Man, and > Helsinki-To-Washington Man. > ​That's quite a mouthful but OK. So the answer to the question "what city will the Helsinki Man With No Hyphen see?" is " ​The Helsinki Man With

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 Terren Suydam wrote: > > ​>>​ >>> ​All I want is to understand what you meant >>> >>> ​by "​ >>> they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged >>> ​", ​and to do that all I really need is to unde

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 Terren Suydam wrote: ​>>​ >> ​All I want is to understand what you meant >> >> ​by "​ >> they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged >> ​", ​and to do that all I really need is to understand exactly what you >> mean by "The Helsinki Man". I though

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​>>​ ​ they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged . >>> >>> >>> ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> Let's assume you're correct, then if the referent of

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so easily >> that Bruno doesn't even seem to realize that Bruno is using them; >> ​ ​ >> it's like breathing, thought is required for neither activity. > > > ​> ​ > The "he

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 09 Jul 2015, at 21:25, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​that guy in Helsinki was able to predict that wherever he will survive he will feel unique, in [] ​He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so easily that Bruno doesn't even

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> ​ >>> they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged >>> . >> >> >> ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Let's assume you're correct, then if the referent of the personal pronoun >> "you" in the question "what city will you s

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > that guy in Helsinki was able to predict that wherever he will survive he > will feel unique, in [] ​He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so easily that Bruno doesn't even seem to realize that Bruno is using them; ​it

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:47 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 Terren Suydam wrote: > > ​> ​ >> they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged. > > > ​Let's assume you're correct, then if the referent of the personal pronoun > "you" in the question "what city

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 09 Jul 2015, at 17:56, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​Just answer this. I recall that W means "I feel to be in W", and "I feel to be in M", with the "I" being the first person I, ​To hell with "THE"! ​If a person has been duplicated then there is n

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I see only your usual rhetorical tricks > ​Those "​rhetorical tricks" have another name, it's an obscure technical term called "logic". Perhaps you've heard of it. > ​> ​ > Just answer this. I recall that W means "I feel to be in W", and "I feel

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 08 Jul 2015, at 18:46, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 , Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ Nonsense. I can show you the diaries proving that the Helsinki Man did write "I see Moscow" AND did write "I see Washington". ​> ​Yes, but​ ​(I see Moscow) and (I see Washington)​ ​ describes tw

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 , Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>>​ >> Nonsense. I can show you the diaries proving that the Helsinki Man did >> write "I see Moscow" AND did write "I see Washington". > > > ​> ​ > Yes, but > ​ ​ > (I see Moscow) and (I see Washington) > ​ ​ > describes two different, and exclusive

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 Terren Suydam wrote: ​> ​ > they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged. ​Let's assume you're correct, then if the referent of the personal pronoun "you" in the question "what city will you see?" is the Helsinki man (and I don't know what else i

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 08 Jul 2015, at 03:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote On 07 Jul 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >> wrote: If there's only one consciousness wh

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 08 Jul 2015, at 03:16, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ that's a pretty dull thought experiment. if everything in the universe will get a cup of coffee then it doesn't matter what the referent to "you" is because whatever it is he she or it will get s

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Bruno Marchal wrote On 07 Jul 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb > wrote: If there's only one consciousness which is aware of both Washington and Moscow then

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ > > that's a pretty dull thought experiment. if everything in the universe > will get a cup of coffee then it doesn't matter what the referent to "you" > is because whatever it is he she or it will get some coffee. What's your > point? ​ > ​> ​ >

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > ​> >>> ​>> ​ >>> ​ >>> But they're not Helsinki man anymore. >>> >>> ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Yes they are​ >> >> ​provided "the Helsinki man" is defined as somebody who remembers being >> T​ >> erren Suydam >> ​ in Helsinki, and that's the definition

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 07 Jul 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >> wrote: If there's only one consciousness which is aware of both Washington and Moscow then asking the body l

  1   2   3   4   >