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

2017-10-05 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

​> ​
>> I have a thought experiment of my own and this is the
>> ​ ​
>> protocol:
>>
>>> 1) I have *TWO* coins, a regular coin and a two headed coin.
>>
>>> 2) I flip both coins.
>> 3) Predict if *the one and only coin* will land heads or tails.
>> ​​
>> You can't predict it because of coin indeterminacy. Is it too early to
>> start writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech?
>>
>
> ​> ​
> That question can’t be answered because if there are two coins there can’t
> also be one and only one coin.
>

​Yes, and for that very reason it's not even a question, ​it's just a
sequence of words that happens to conform with the rules of English grammar
and a question mark at the end.



> Similarly, if John Clarke is duplicated to two cities then it doesn’t make
> sense to ask which one and only one city will end up with a John Clark in
> it.
>

​Precisely correct, it's ridiculous. And sticking into that  a personal
pronoun into the middle of that nonsense will not help one bit.​



> ​> ​
> But this is NOT the same as asking which one and only one city will John
> Clark see, from his own point of view.
>

​It's exactly precisely the same. It's the same​

​gibberish as asking ​what one and only one one way THE coin will fall from
"IT'S" own point of view.
There is one and only one way to avoid the gibberish, ​
Stathis Papaioannou
​ needs to explain what one and only one person the personal pronoun "his"
in the above reefers to.  John Clark is all ears. ​


> ​>​
> You have been through this before countless times, if some version of the
> multiverse is true, and you know that you only end up in one city from your
> own point of view,
>

As far as this is concerned ​
​it makes no difference if the ​
multiverse
​ exists or not; ​when looking from the present into the past there is
*always* one and only one stream of consciousness that a being can
remember. But that is NOT what you're talking about, you're talking about
looking from the present into the future. The future operates according to
different rules than the past, that's why they have different names.

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")

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:51, Terren Suydam wrote:

​Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that ​ one stream of  
consciousness​ is in Moscow or Washington?​


Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person indeterminacy.  
I'll get the champagne.


If you drink champagne each time John shows understanding, you will  
become an alcoholic! The problem is not so much his understanding,  
than his will to acknowledge that understanding.


I suggest you reserve the champagne when he moves to step 4.

Hmm... that might never happen, so OK, just one glass,

Cheers, and thank for you courageous attempt.

Bruno







--
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.


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

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Sep 2017, at 20:23, John Clark wrote:




On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Terren Suydam  wrote:


​> ​There's one stream of consciousness.​ ​And you correctly  
realized that nobody can *ever* tell you if that one stream of  
consciousness is in Moscow or in Washington.


​I would go even further than that, nobody can  *ever* tell me the  
answer and nobody can *ever* tell me what the question was either.


The question is "when in Helsinki, what do you expect to live as first  
person experience".


And the answer is "I expect to feel myself in W or in M", with an  
exclusive "or" because nobody would ever feel to be in the two places  
at once with the protocol given.


Bruno




  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.


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.


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

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Sep 2017, at 20:02, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Terren Suydam  wrote:


​​>> ​Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that ​ one  
stream of consciousness​ is in Moscow or Washington?​


​> ​Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person  
indeterminacy. I'll get the champagne.


​That's it? Bruno's great discovery is that ambiguous questions  
have no answers? I have found one on my own, I call it cat color  
indeterminacy:


 "Today I have two cats a black cat and a white cat, tomorrow what  
will be the color of the one and only cat that I have ever had?".


You prove very well my point. You just prove that the gibberishness  
comes directly by abstracting away from the 1p/3p.



Bruno





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.


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.


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

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Oct 2017, at 02:19, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​>​ That is why you don't listen to the copies. They are elves in  
Santa Clause's shop


​As I said the copies have nothing to do will it. The elves in  
Santa Clause's shop have just as much to do with this as the copies  
do, nothing. The one person to ask after it is over to learn the  
truth is the one and one one person that is two​ ​people; the  
copies are no that, the original is not that, the elves are not  
that, nothing is that.


I have a thought experiment of my own and this is the protocol:
1) I have TWO coins, a regular coin and a two headed coin.
2) I flip both coins.
3) Predict if the one and only coin will land heads or tails.
You can't predict it because of coin indeterminacy.

​> ​Hmm... let me think.
I think that I can't answer, because there is two coins landing on  
the table, so that the question is meaningless.


​Very good Bruno!​ Do you believe there are others or was that  
the only meaningless question in existence?


That question is weird. of course there are many others, but if you  
accept that "coin" can think, then the question or similar becomes  
meaningful because you can apply the 1p-3p distinction. You have just  
mimic the question in a context (coin) where such distinction was  
meaningless. That is poor strategy!








> ​t​he last Prize I got disappeared, and the promotion which was  
promised got transformed into widening defamation.


​I don't get it, you said I was the only one that disagreed with  
you.​


Yes, the disappearance of the prize was not motivated by any  
disagreement. I would have heard them since.







Now, guess what is missing in your coin theorem? The coin 1p/3p  
distinction.


​Guess what is missing in the thought experiment. It's the 1p/1p/1p  
distinction because there are three of them and when Bruno Marchal  
refers to "he" or "I" or "you"  or "THE 1p" there is no way of  
knowing which ONE of the THREE Bruno Marchal is referring to.  ​


You distract yourself from the question asked.






​> ​You don't refute step 3. You just stop

​Guilty as charged. It's impossible ​to refute gibberish because  
there is nothing there to refute, but it is possible to stop reading  
it.​


yes. Your refutation is now limited to the insult. If you were feeling  
it is gibberish, you would be able to say something senseful. But you  
just forget the 1p/3p distinction, and then ... get the gibberish  
aspect that you are introducing all by yourself.






​> ​You forget that you agreed that both are the original guy.

​No. The original guy is both of them but neither them is the  
original guy,



Then you contradict yourself, as you have agreed many times that the H- 
guy survived in both cities.





the copies have all the memories of the original man but in addition  
they have memories the original man does not have. ​


Then you don't survive either with the simple teleportation, and comp  
(CT+YD) is refuted, and ... QED, by reductio ad absurdum.







​>> ​​It makes no difference if ​computationalism is true or  
false,  ​if there is no question there can be no answer.​


​> ​It is just because you deny the answer of the copies.

​I can't deny any answer if I don't know the question!​

​> ​Then you deny that you survive duplication.

​Maybe so, it depends on what "you" means. In my language "you"  
means somebody who remembers  being Bruno Marchal yesterday and so  
"you" has survived, but I don't know what "you" means in Brunospeak.


Good, you come quickly back to the identity criterion on which we both  
agreed, but then you re-contradict yourself, because the H-guy has now  
survived in both places, and so it makes sense to interview them,  
after all. But then we get the first person indeterminacy immediately.


I would say case close. But we know that you will not be happy with  
this, and continue your rhetorical maneuver.


Bruno





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.


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.


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

2017-10-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Oct 2017, at 00:45, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​just ask him to describe from a 1st pov what happens... like  
this:​ I'm in helsinki, I'm in front of a button, I close my eyes,  
I push on the button, and I open my eyes, and I am ...


Note that you are commenting Quentin here.





​I have a better idea. There is no reason to speculate where Mr. I


Mr I, is a joke -, I guess, but it is confusing. "I" is an indexical.  
here is no sense in saying Mr I.






will be, instead just wait 2 seconds for the button to be pushed and  
then simply ask Mr. I where he is, that way everybody will know for  
sure. You've assured me that there is absolutely no ambiguity in any  
of this so I'm sure there will be universal agreement on which of  
the two copies is the one true Mr. I,


Not that is impossible. We have agreed that both are the true "Mr I",  
which is just the Helsinki guy just fater pusjinh the button. Only him  
can say if he FELL to be in W or in M. But both can confirms they  
could not predict the result before pushing the button.


You always talk like if the first person indeterminacy was presented  
as a third person result, which has never been the case. Only you are  
doing this, and it is part of your confusion between 1p and 3p, which  
seems to be deliberate, to be franc.






so just ask that gentleman what city he is in. Problem  
solved.​


Sorry, we have to ask BOTH. Just by definition, and to answer the  
question asked.






​> ​Most people ignore that all the UDA​ [...] ​John Clark is  
not the only one repeating those lies on me or the notions  
involved​ [...] . Even my director of thesis eventually justified  
the disappearance of the "Prix Le Monde" by writing a very big lie.


​I thought you said I was the only one who had a problem with your  
ideas.​ ​


I am talking about the people reading the argument.

Oh, perhaps you have also not read it, but there are some evidence  
that you have read it up to step 3 which is infinitely more than them.  
There has no be a jury deciding to make the thesis disappears, as you  
should be able to guess. My problem in Brussels have nothing to do  
with my work. It would be far out of the cope of this list to start  
speaking about that. I have never met, not even one minute, the people  
who have rejected my thesis in Brussels, or elsewhere, nor did they  
answer any mails or letters. I saw one of them in the street, but when  
seeing me, he jumped in the first bus he saw. At least, you do fake  
reasoning, and you do illustrate the kind of irrational behavior  
needed to oppose the conclusion, which somehow comfort me a lot.  
Thanks for that.


Bruno





 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.


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.


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

2017-10-01 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 at 3:48 pm, John Clark  wrote:

I have a thought experiment of my own and this is the protocol:
>
> 1) I have *TWO* coins, a regular coin and a two headed coin.
> 2) I flip both coins.
> 3) Predict if *the one and only coin* will land heads or tails.
>
> You can't predict it because of coin indeterminacy. Is it too early to
> start writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech?
>

That question can’t be answered because if there are two coins there can’t
also be one and only one coin. Similarly, if John Clarke is duplicated to
two cities then it doesn’t make sense to ask which one and only one city
will end up with a John Clark in it. But this is NOT the same as asking
which one and only one city will John Clark see, from his own point of
view. You have been through this before countless times, if some version of
the multiverse is true, and you know that you only end up in one city from
your own point of view, despite how many copies of you are out there.
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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")

2017-10-01 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>​
>  That is why you don't listen to the copies. They are elves in Santa
> Clause's shop


​As I said the copies have nothing to do will it.
The elves in Santa Clause's shop have just as much to do with this as the
copies do, nothing. T
he one person to ask after it is over to learn the truth is the one and one
one person that is two​

​people; the copies are no that, the original is not that, the elves are
not that, nothing is that.

I have a thought experiment of my own and this is the protocol:
>> 1) I have *TWO* coins, a regular coin and a two headed coin.
>> 2) I flip both coins.
>> 3) Predict if *the one and only coin* will land heads or tails.
>> You can't predict it because of coin indeterminacy.
>
>
> ​> ​
> Hmm... let me think.
> I think that I can't answer, because there is two coins landing on the
> table, so that the question is meaningless.
>

​Very good Bruno!​ Do you believe there are others or was that the only
meaningless question in existence?


> > ​t​
> he last Prize I got disappeared, and the promotion which was promised got
> transformed into widening defamation.
>

​I don't get it, you said I was the only one that disagreed with you.​



> Now, guess what is missing in your coin theorem? The coin 1p/3p
> distinction.
>

​Guess what is missing in the thought experiment. It's the 1p/1p/1p
distinction because there are three of them and when Bruno Marchal refers
to "he" or "I" or "you"  or "THE 1p" there is no way of knowing which ONE
of the THREE Bruno Marchal is referring to.  ​



> ​> ​
> You don't refute step 3. You just stop
>

​Guilty as charged. I
t's impossible
​to refute gibberish because there is nothing there to refute, but it is
possible to stop reading it.​

​> ​
> You forget that you agreed that both are the original guy.
>

​No. The original guy is both of them but neither them is the original guy,
the copies have all the memories of the original man but in addition they
have memories the original man does not have. ​


​>> ​
>> ​It makes no difference if ​computationalism is true or false,
>> ​if there is no question there can be no answer.​
>>
>
> ​> ​
> It is just because you deny the answer of the copies.
>

​I can't deny any answer if I don't know the question!​


​> ​
> Then you deny that you survive duplication.
>

​Maybe so, it depends on what "you" means. In my language "you" means
somebody who remembers  being Bruno Marchal yesterday and so "you" has
survived,
but I don't know what "you" means in Brunospeak.

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")

2017-10-01 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> just ask him to describe from a 1st pov what happens... like this:
> ​ I
> 'm in helsinki, I'm in front of a button, I close my eyes, I push on the
> button, and I open my eyes, and I am ...


​I have a better idea. There is no reason to speculate where Mr. I will be,
instead just wait 2 seconds for the button to be pushed and then simply ask
Mr. I where he is, that way everybody will know for sure. You've assured me
that there is absolutely no ambiguity in any of this so I'm sure there will
be universal agreement on which of the two copies is the one true Mr. I, so
just ask that gentleman what city he is in. Problem solved.​


​> ​
> Most people ignore that all the UDA
> ​ [...] ​
> John Clark is not the only one repeating those lies on me or the notions
> involved
> ​ [...]
> . Even my director of thesis eventually justified the disappearance of the
> "Prix Le Monde" by writing a very big lie.
>

​I thought you said I was the only one who had a problem with your ideas.​

​

 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")

2017-10-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Sep 2017, at 22:48, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​I predict the one and only one thing I will see tomorrow after I  
become two is Santa Clause's workshop.


​> ​Of course, this is a joke. I hope.

I was ​dead serious​. After I have been duplicated and become two  
there will be no proof that the one and only one thing that I  
saw​ ​was​ ​Santa Clause's workshop​ but there will be no  
proof ​that the one and only one thing that I saw​ ​ was  
NOT ​​Santa Clause's workshop​ either; and the same thing could  
be said for everything else in the universe.


?






And don't start talking about interviewing the copies afterwards ​ 
because they have nothing to do with it.



?





The question was asking about the one and only one being that will  
result when one being becomes two, and neither the Moscow man nor  
the Washington man fits that description better than a elf in  Santa  
Clause's workshop​.


Ah OK. That is why you don't listen to the copies. They are elves in  
Santa Clause's shop.


How could I have not figured that out earlier?






That's the trouble with gibberish statements, nothing can ever  
confirm them and nothing can ever refute them.



You just illustrated this admirably.






​>> ​​Why is what you expect to see tomorrow more important  
than what it turns out you actually see tomorrow?


​> ​Because it is the relation between those two things which is  
important,


​Expectations that turn out to be correct are important and  
valuable, expectations that turn out to be incorrect are the  
opposite of that, and if a expectation turns out to be neither  
correct nor incorrect then you were expecting gibberish.


Then all 1p talk is gibberish. The poor H-man and M-man have to be  
considered like zombies or elves.


You are denying for all your copies to claim they have survived. That  
looks like anti-computationalism for me. If you can't attribute them  
genuine consciousness to the point of deciding not to read their  
diaries, nor to even ask they what the feel and remember, why trust  
the simple teleportation case?
You add some black magic in the duplication which by mechanism is just  
not there.









​> ​and not entirely obvious in a world with duplicating  
machine.  Without duplication, we can ascribe one's mind to the  
body, but with the duplication, to evaluate what we can expect, such  
simple identity link is no more available


​Agreed.​


OK.





​>> ​An even more important question is ​ "What one and only  
one thing will "you" mean tomorrow​ if "you" is duplicated and  
"you" becomes two today?"


​>​It means "W-man or M-man" in Helsinki.

​Or? It's hard enough to predict what somebody will see  
tomorrow,  ​but if you can't even say who's future viewing you want  
a prediction of ​then how am I suposed to do it?


I have a thought experiment of my own and this is the protocol:

1) I have TWO coins, a regular coin and a two headed coin.
2) I flip both coins.
3) Predict if the one and only coin will land heads or tails.

You can't predict it because of coin indeterminacy.



Hmm... let me think.

I think that I can't answer, because there is two coins landing on the  
table, so that the question is meaningless.






Is it too early to start writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech?



I am very honored that you think the first person indeterminacy  
deserves the Nobel Prize, but the last Prize I got disappeared, and  
the promotion which was promised got transformed into widening  
defamation. So, well, no, thank you. I would get the Nobel Prize, even  
the far away galaxies would believe that I am crackpot writing  
gibberish.



Now, guess what is missing in your coin theorem? The coin 1p/3p  
distinction. Normal, you ignore the question.


You don't refute step 3. You just stop ... because who care what the H- 
guy could expect, his copies have nothing to say on the matter.







​> ​There is no paradox. It is trivial that with comp,

​You've been talking about "comp" for years but I still don't know  
what that is so I have no opinion on the above.​


Yes. I know. You have memory problem which is not helpful.

No problem: comp is my weak version of computationalism. It is the  
Church-Turing thesis (CT) + what I sum up by "yes doctor" or even YD,  
which is UDA step zero: the (theological) belief/assumption that we  
can survive after a digital physical reincarnation, or physical re- 
implementation. Comp = CT + YD. Write this on a post-it and put it on  
your computer. I suggest.







​> ​I can accept something like "death, or Saint-Peter, or Santa  
Klaus" from an opponent to Mechanism. If you believe Mechanism is  
false, you can in some sense expect anything.


​Any expectation can  happen if you can't say who the expectation  
is about. ​


I can say it very well. You forget that you agreed that both are the  
original guy. Everybody knows that guy very well, and after 

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

2017-10-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Sep 2017, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, David Nyman   
wrote:


​> ​Actually there have been some quite interesting discussions  
outside the JC echo chamber, I think, Quentin. I don't bother with  
the troll,


​So you believe Quentin's ideas are so brilliant that nobody could  
sincerely disagree with them and I have written hundreds of posts  
over the years defending a position I did not believe had any value.  
Hmm... I bet you voted for Trump.  ​


​> ​although I occasionally read your contributions because the  
degree of, no doubt understandable, vitriol you have accumulated  
towards his attitude to the discussion is quite entertaining.


​Entertaining in the way intestinal worms are entertaining perhaps.

​> ​Personally I've never been able to understand all the fuss.  
In a world with duplication machines we'd just have to accept that  
other people might have a legitimate claim to be the successors of  
the same predecessor as ourselves.


​If you know there will be more than one successor then​ ​ 
asking the predecessor what one and only one thing will happen to  
that predecessor​ would be a brain dead dumb thing to do.


​> ​But that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the necessity  
of finding ourselves to be one single individual at any given moment.


No bearing? You​ ​just​ ​said "finding ourselves" and that's  
plural, so when you ask "what one and only one thing" what the hell  
are you asking and who are you asking it of?​ ​Some very stupid  
people, such as those that think Quentin​ ​is clever, believe  
it's like a coin flip, but it's nothing like a coin flip! Today I  
don't  know if​ ​the flip​ ​will​ ​end up​ ​heads or  
tails and the best I can do is assign probabilities, but tomorrow I  
won't need probabilities at all,​ ​tomorrow​ ​I can state  
with 100% certainty​ ​exactly how it turned out; however with  
Bruno's thought experiment tomorrow after its completed everybody  
still will be as ignorant of the answer as they were the day before  
because​ ​it's still not clear what the question was.



Everybody?

The H-man and the W-man knows the answer. They remembered distinctly  
being in Helsinki, asking themselves "where will I feel to have  
survived?", and now, both copies knows very well the answers. The fact  
that they cannot communicate it to you as such is just the usual  
impossibility to communicate our own personal subjective experience.  
But you cannot use this to dismiss the objective fact that from the H- 
man and W-man perspective, they did not know where they will survived,  
could only write "W v M" in the diary, and after, each of them have  
perfect knowledge of the result, W for one, M for the other. they  
trivially got that bot of information, and destroy the 3p symmetry in  
their 1p perspective.


(The 1p perspective is of course a key ingredient to formulate the  
mechanist version of some aspect of the mind-body problem).


By forgetting the H-man and the W-man in your "everybody", you  
illustrate that you forget that the question was about the 1p  
experience.





​>​ I suppose it's just barely within the bounds of possibility  
that some poor soul might be incapable of understanding what is  
entailed in BEING someone as distinct from DESCRIBING someone. But  
if that were indeed the case one could only shake one's head and  
pass on by.


​Even in a world with people duplicating machines I have no trouble  
understanding what BEING someone means, and I have no trouble  
understanding what having BEEN somebody means, but I have enormous  
difficulty understanding what the one and only one person I WILL BE  
means.


It is not what you will be. It is what you will *feel* to be, as made  
clear when using the diaries and the definition given.


Then it is like in the simple (no duplication) teleportation  
experience, except that it looks like the destination has been taken  
by a coin, and that we inherit of a doppelganger living in the other  
city.


That follows logically, with "I" being the Helsinki candidate,  from  
"I survive + I cannot survive and feel being in both city  
simultaneously (in this precise protocol and assuming mechanism (of  
course))".


Bruno




John K Clark







​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.


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 

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

2017-10-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Sep 2017, at 11:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2017-09-30 11:40 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam  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).


Bruno

just ask him to describe from a 1st pov what happens... like this:

I'm in helsinki, I'm in front of a button, I close my eyes, I push  
on the button, and I open my eyes, and I am ...


I see only one valid continuation of the text if written before  
pushing the button:


-> in washington or in moscow.

I see two valid continuations of the text given by the two copies if  
written after pushing the button:


-> in washingtom
-> in moscow

What will never be valid if written before or after is this;

-> in washington and in moscow.

Because being in washington *and* moscow is not something that can  
be lived from the 1st pov.


OK.






But JC will still blurry anything by either pretending it's 1st POV  
vanish from existense or that the answer is santa claus or obiwan  
kenobi...


Is it not mysterious? Intriguing?







So the only real valid continuation here is to *stop* talking with  
him and about this. The last 10 years of this list is a circle dumb  
discussion between you and JC... JC has clearly destroyed the goal  
of this list, and you engaging him on this is just the way to  
perpetuate that troll forever... *he will never acknowledge  
anything*, he is a troll... that's his purpose, he doesn't *care* of  
what you're saying, he is just taking pride of destroying this place  
of discussion about everything theories (not only yours).


Yes. But all my life people have "argued" like that under my back, for  
reason I can understand, and not related to mechanism.
The question for me is how far can John Clark, or any Löbian machine,  
get irrational and why?


It is related to the question of lies in general, the Bf. Its role in  
arithmetic and life and why, on the fundamental questions (which needs  
deep introspection) it is frequent they become irrational. Boltzmann  
had a very hard time with those denying and mocking his idea of  
"statistical physics". Come on! There were just no place for  
statistics in the classical mechanical mind of the time.


It illustrates that "materialist believers" are not afraid of  
contradictions to keep their dogma. We are warned. It is the stage  
before the bombs.





As I see it, this list died 10 years ago, nothing interresting as  
come out of it since unfortunately... only infinite useless step 3  
discussion with a troll.


Step 7 is more interesting. And step 8, well I have changed my mind on  
its necessity at all in the argument. yet, it still shows something  
subtle and very interesting which throws some light of on what are  
computations and mathematical relations in general.


Most people ignore that all the UDA can be formalized in arithmetic,  
and, better, has been somehow formalized through the work of Gödel,  
Löb, Solovay (G, G*), Visser, with some of the intensional variant  
made independently by Goldblatt, Boolos, and also Kuznetsov and  
Muravitskii in the ex-USSR (S4Grz).


John Clark is not the only one repeating those lies on me or the  
notions involved (in which case it is disguised in errors. Even my  
director of thesis eventually justified the disappearance of the "Prix  
Le Monde" by writing a very big lie.


Is it really the fear of mechanism? Or just the fear of a minority to  
hide a scandal and save their notoriety? The behavior of John confirms  
that could be the case. It could be just the hubris. But then it means  
there is still some hope, I mean, for humanity. Some hope is tasting  
the truth instead of the lies.


I teach the Turing machine formalism this year, want a taste of it? I  
build a virtuous circle (cf. Brent). I teach five "universal  
machineries": Turing machines, Combinators, Lambda Expressions, Abacus  
Machine, Modular machine (Cohen), and Diophantine Polynomials, showing  
that they emulate themselves in a circle. My goal is to help people to  
understand what is an implementation, a notion always relative to a  
universal machine or machinery. I use 

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

2017-09-30 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​I predict the one and only one thing I will see tomorrow after I become
>> two is Santa Clause's workshop.
>
>
> ​> ​
> Of course, this is a joke. I hope.
>

I was
​dead serious​
. After I have been duplicated and become two there will be no proof that
the one and only one thing that I saw
​ ​
was
​ ​
Santa Clause's workshop
​ but there will be no proof ​
that the one and only one thing that I saw
​ ​ was NOT
​​
Santa Clause's workshop
​ either; and the same thing could be said for everything else in the
universe.
And don't start talking about interviewing the copies afterwards ​because
they have nothing to do with it. The question was asking about the one and
only one being that will result when one being becomes two, and neither the
Moscow man nor the Washington man fits that description better than a elf
in
 Santa Clause's workshop
​. That's the trouble with gibberish statements, nothing can ever confirm
them and nothing can ever refute them.

​>> ​
>> ​Why is what you expect to see tomorrow more important than what it turns
>> out you actually see tomorrow?
>
>
> ​> ​
> Because it is the relation between those two things which is important,
>

​Expectations that turn out to be correct are important and valuable,
expectations that turn out to be incorrect are the opposite of that, and if
a expectation turns out to be neither correct nor incorrect then you were
expecting gibberish.


> ​> ​
> and not entirely obvious in a world with duplicating machine.  Without
> duplication, we can ascribe one's mind to the body, but with the
> duplication, to evaluate what we can expect, such simple identity link is
> no more available
>

​Agreed.​


​>> ​
>> An even more important question is ​ "What one and only one thing will
>> "you" mean tomorrow​ if "you" is duplicated and "you" becomes two today?"
>
>

​>​
> It means "W-man or M-man" in Helsinki.
>

​Or? It's hard enough to predict what somebody will see tomorrow,

​but if you can't even say who's future viewing you want a prediction of
​then how am I suposed to do it?

I have a thought experiment of my own and this is the protocol:

1) I have *TWO* coins, a regular coin and a two headed coin.
2) I flip both coins.
3) Predict if *the one and only coin* will land heads or tails.

You can't predict it because of coin indeterminacy. Is it too early to
start writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech?

​> ​
> There is no paradox. It is trivial that with comp,
>

​You've been talking about "comp" for years but I still don't know what
that is so I have no opinion on the above.​



> ​> ​
> I can accept something like "death, or Saint-Peter, or Santa Klaus" from
> an opponent to Mechanism. If you believe Mechanism is false, you can in
> some sense expect anything.
>

​Any expectation can  happen if you can't say who the expectation is about.
​

​> ​
> But from a computationalist it is pure nonsense, not even laughable.
>

​It makes no difference if ​computationalism is true or false,

​if there is no question there can be no answer.​


> ​> ​
> Please, you said that everything is predictable, so I ask you to make that
> statement more clear and precise by telling what is it that you write in
> the personal diary in Helsinki about what you expect to live.
>

​I've already told you that, after I have been duplicated and have become
TWO the ONE and only ONE place I expect to be is Santa Clauses workshop,
and that expectation will prove to be just as true as any other.


>
​> ​
>  confused again the 1p view with the 3p view


​Have you considered setting your mantra to music? It might make a catchy
song.


> ​> ​
> You attribute bad intention when there are none.


​You accuse me of that?! Regardless of how heated our exchanges have been I
have never once questioned your sincerity or called you a troll, but either
you or your​

​toady​
Quentin have called me that nearly every day for years.  ​

 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")

2017-09-30 Thread David Nyman
On 30 Sep 2017 6:03 p.m., "John Clark"  wrote:

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, David Nyman  wrote:

​> ​
> Actually there have been some quite interesting discussions outside the JC
> echo chamber, I think, Quentin. I don't bother with the troll,
>

​So you believe Quentin's ideas are so brilliant that nobody could
sincerely disagree with them and I have written hundreds of posts over the
years defending a position I did not believe had any value. Hmm... I bet
you voted for Trump.  ​

​> ​
> although I occasionally read your contributions because the degree of, no
> doubt understandable, vitriol you have accumulated towards his attitude to
> the discussion is quite entertaining.


​Entertaining in the way intestinal worms are entertaining perhaps.

​> ​
> Personally I've never been able to understand all the fuss. In a world
> with duplication machines we'd just have to accept that other people might
> have a legitimate claim to be the successors of the same predecessor as
> ourselves.
>

​If you know there will be more than one successor then​

​asking the predecessor what one and only one thing will happen to that
predecessor
​ would be a brain dead dumb thing to do.


> ​> ​
> But that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the necessity of finding
> ourselves to be one single individual at any given moment.
>

No bearing? You
​ ​
just
​ ​
said "finding ourselves" and that's plural, so when you ask "what one and
only one thing" what the hell are you asking and who are you asking it of?


I'd reread what you said before you even think about calling other people
stupid. I'm sure you're capable of substituting 'oneself' if that's what's
bothering you. We find ourselves to be only one person at a time. In fact,
that is the entire point that you seem forever intent on preserving the
pretence of failing to understand.

In any case I didn't in point of fact ask you anything since asking you
anything is manifestly futile.

​ ​
Some very stupid people, such as those that think Quentin
​ ​
is clever, believe it's like a coin flip, but it's nothing like a coin
flip! Today I don't  know if
​ ​
the flip
​ ​
will
​ ​
end up
​ ​
heads or tails and the best I can do is assign probabilities, but tomorrow
I won't need probabilities at all,
​ ​
tomorrow
​ ​
I can state with 100% certainty
​ ​
exactly how it turned out; however with Bruno's thought experiment tomorrow
after its completed everybody still will be as ignorant of the answer as
they were the day before because
​ ​
it's still not clear what the question was.


> ​>​
>  I suppose it's just barely within the bounds of possibility that some
> poor soul might be incapable of understanding what is entailed in BEING
> someone as distinct from DESCRIBING someone. But if that were indeed the
> case one could only shake one's head and pass on by.


​Even in a world with people duplicating machines I have no trouble
understanding what *BEING* someone means, and I have no trouble
understanding what having *BEEN* somebody means, but I have enormous
difficulty understanding what the one and only one person I *WILL BE*
means.


Who asked you? Not me. But you can perhaps comprehend that you could find
yourself in the position of remembering having had the same predecessor as
someone else. In that case, as convention has it, the individual that you
find yourself to be can be considered as one of the future continuations of
that predecessor. And by that same token, as not being any of the others.
So the predecessor's anticipated 'next moment is in fact a single present
moment in the point of view of any one of the successors. Each will recall
that moment of anticipation as the immediately preceding part of their
personal history.

The predecessor, knowing about the duplication, is able to DESCRIBE more
than one such continuation. But they will also easily appreciate that their
present state will inevitably be recalled from the perspective of not more
than one of those continuations at any given future moment. The
restrictions logically contingent on the nature of individuality preclude
the possibility of BEING, which is to say occupying the perspective of,
more than a single individual at any given moment.

It may possibly help with any conceptual difficulties to consider that just
as multiple continuations can't be experienced simultaneously, they can
nevertheless be conceived as being experienced serially. Hence in a certain
sense the predecessor can indeed anticipate experiencing BEING both
continuations, but serially and not in the context of the same moment. The
personal histories of such 'serially simultaneous' moments then
subsequently diverge. This heuristic of what one may term 'universal
agency' is borrowed from Hoyle.

Since the relation with both personal history and spatial-temporal
localisation is by assumption locally determined, this can make no
difference to anything but ease of conceptualisation. Given this 

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

2017-09-30 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

​> ​
> As I see it, this list died 10 years ago


​And yet you didn't leave the list 10 years ago, you must enjoy hanging out
with cadavers, must be getting a bit pungent by now. ​


​ 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")

2017-09-30 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, David Nyman  wrote:

​> ​
> Actually there have been some quite interesting discussions outside the JC
> echo chamber, I think, Quentin. I don't bother with the troll,
>

​So you believe Quentin's ideas are so brilliant that nobody could
sincerely disagree with them and I have written hundreds of posts over the
years defending a position I did not believe had any value. Hmm... I bet
you voted for Trump.  ​

​> ​
> although I occasionally read your contributions because the degree of, no
> doubt understandable, vitriol you have accumulated towards his attitude to
> the discussion is quite entertaining.


​Entertaining in the way intestinal worms are entertaining perhaps.

​> ​
> Personally I've never been able to understand all the fuss. In a world
> with duplication machines we'd just have to accept that other people might
> have a legitimate claim to be the successors of the same predecessor as
> ourselves.
>

​If you know there will be more than one successor then​

​asking the predecessor what one and only one thing will happen to that
predecessor
​ would be a brain dead dumb thing to do.


> ​> ​
> But that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the necessity of finding
> ourselves to be one single individual at any given moment.
>

No bearing? You
​ ​
just
​ ​
said "finding ourselves" and that's plural, so when you ask "what one and
only one thing" what the hell are you asking and who are you asking it of?
​ ​
Some very stupid people, such as those that think Quentin
​ ​
is clever, believe it's like a coin flip, but it's nothing like a coin
flip! Today I don't  know if
​ ​
the flip
​ ​
will
​ ​
end up
​ ​
heads or tails and the best I can do is assign probabilities, but tomorrow
I won't need probabilities at all,
​ ​
tomorrow
​ ​
I can state with 100% certainty
​ ​
exactly how it turned out; however with Bruno's thought experiment tomorrow
after its completed everybody still will be as ignorant of the answer as
they were the day before because
​ ​
it's still not clear what the question was.


> ​>​
>  I suppose it's just barely within the bounds of possibility that some
> poor soul might be incapable of understanding what is entailed in BEING
> someone as distinct from DESCRIBING someone. But if that were indeed the
> case one could only shake one's head and pass on by.


​Even in a world with people duplicating machines I have no trouble
understanding what *BEING* someone means, and I have no trouble
understanding what having *BEEN* somebody means, but I have enormous
difficulty understanding what the one and only one person I *WILL BE*
means.

John K Clark







​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")

2017-09-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 at 11:07 am, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> There could be an infinite number of copies but each one of them will
>> have THE first person perspective.
>>
>
> ​
> True. And for that very reason asking "What one and only one city will *I*
> see tomorrow from *THE*
> *​* ​
> first person perspective
> ​ ​
> after *I* have been duplicated a infinite number of times ?" would be an
> astronomically silly thing to say because nobody knows who
> ​ ​
> Mr. *THE*  is, not even Mr. *I*.
> ​
>

You know with certainty that there will be multiple versions claiming to
have a first person experience, but there will only be one and only one
“I”. You know that in the same way as you know it now: there are lots of
people all around you claiming to have first person experience, all in
different places, and maybe other John Clarks, but there is only one you.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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")

2017-09-30 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

​> ​
> There could be an infinite number of copies but each one of them will have
> THE first person perspective.
>

​
True. And for that very reason asking "What one and only one city will *I*
see tomorrow from *THE*
*​* ​
first person perspective
​ ​
after *I* have been duplicated a infinite number of times ?" would be an
astronomically silly thing to say because nobody knows who
​ ​
Mr. *THE*  is, not even Mr. *I*.
​

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")

2017-09-30 Thread David Nyman
On 30 Sep 2017 10:49 a.m., "Quentin Anciaux"  wrote:



2017-09-30 11:40 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam 
> 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).
>
> Bruno
>

just ask him to describe from a 1st pov what happens... like this:

I'm in helsinki, I'm in front of a button, I close my eyes, I push on the
button, and I open my eyes, and I am ...

I see only one valid continuation of the text if written before pushing the
button:

-> in washington or in moscow.

I see two valid continuations of the text given by the two copies if
written after pushing the button:

-> in washingtom
-> in moscow

What will never be valid if written before or after is this;

-> in washington and in moscow.

Because being in washington *and* moscow is not something that can be lived
from the 1st pov.

But JC will still blurry anything by either pretending it's 1st POV vanish
from existense or that the answer is santa claus or obiwan kenobi...

So the only real valid continuation here is to *stop* talking with him and
about this. The last 10 years of this list is a circle dumb discussion
between you and JC... JC has clearly destroyed the goal of this list, and
you engaging him on this is just the way to perpetuate that troll
forever... *he will never acknowledge anything*, he is a troll... that's
his purpose, he doesn't *care* of what you're saying, he is just taking
pride of destroying this place of discussion about everything theories (not
only yours).

As I see it, this list died 10 years ago, nothing interresting as come out
of it since unfortunately... only infinite useless step 3 discussion with a
troll.


Actually there have been some quite interesting discussions outside the JC
echo chamber, I think, Quentin. I don't bother with the troll, although I
occasionally read your contributions because the degree of, no doubt
understandable, vitriol you have accumulated towards his attitude to the
discussion is quite entertaining.

Personally I've never been able to understand all the fuss. In a world with
duplication machines we'd just have to accept that other people might have
a legitimate claim to be the successors of the same predecessor as
ourselves. But that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the necessity of
finding ourselves to be one single individual at any given moment.

Any other possibility would simply violate the logical restriction on what
it means to BE one individual as distinct from another. I suppose it's just
barely within the bounds of possibility that some poor soul might be
incapable of understanding what is entailed in BEING someone as distinct
from DESCRIBING someone. But if that were indeed the case one could only
shake one's head and pass on by.

David


 Quentin


>
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> 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.
>
>
>> ​> ​

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

2017-09-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


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  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 

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

2017-09-30 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2017-09-30 11:40 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam 
> 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).
>
> Bruno
>

just ask him to describe from a 1st pov what happens... like this:

I'm in helsinki, I'm in front of a button, I close my eyes, I push on the
button, and I open my eyes, and I am ...

I see only one valid continuation of the text if written before pushing the
button:

-> in washington or in moscow.

I see two valid continuations of the text given by the two copies if
written after pushing the button:

-> in washingtom
-> in moscow

What will never be valid if written before or after is this;

-> in washington and in moscow.

Because being in washington *and* moscow is not something that can be lived
from the 1st pov.

But JC will still blurry anything by either pretending it's 1st POV vanish
from existense or that the answer is santa claus or obiwan kenobi...

So the only real valid continuation here is to *stop* talking with him and
about this. The last 10 years of this list is a circle dumb discussion
between you and JC... JC has clearly destroyed the goal of this list, and
you engaging him on this is just the way to perpetuate that troll
forever... *he will never acknowledge anything*, he is a troll... that's
his purpose, he doesn't *care* of what you're saying, he is just taking
pride of destroying this place of discussion about everything theories (not
only yours).

As I see it, this list died 10 years ago, nothing interresting as come out
of it since unfortunately... only infinite useless step 3 discussion with a
troll.

 Quentin


>
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> 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 

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

2017-09-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam  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).


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-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.


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

2017-09-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Sep 2017, at 20:39, John Clark wrote:




On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​​>> ​Congratulation on saying ​​"​a first person  
viewpoint​" not "the first person viewpoint​"! ​ I think the  
word "expect" is unnecessary but in general I have no problem with  
that question nor the answer, and it's all 100% predictable.


​> ​Nice. So what is the prediction that you write in the diary  
(in Helsinki)?


​I predict the one and only one thing I will see tomorrow after I  
become two is Santa Clause's workshop.


Of course, this is a joke. I hope.


​

​> ​The question is what do you expect to live when going through  
such experiment.


​Why is what you expect to see tomorrow more important than what it  
turns out you actually see tomorrow?



Because it is the relation between those two things which is  
important, and not entirely obvious in a world with duplicating  
machine.  Without duplication, we can ascribe one's mind to the body,  
but with the duplication, to evaluate what we can expect, such simple  
identity link is no more available, and that plays a key role in all  
what follows from there.





An even more important question is ​ "What one and only one thing  
will "you" mean tomorrow​ if "you" is duplicated and "you" becomes  
two today?"


It means "W-man or M-man" in Helsinki. And its means its usual  
indexical thing in both cities after.







​>> ​But I still have a huge problem with "How any cities will I  
see after I have been duplicated?".


​> ​That is weird, as it is very easy.

​Quit stalling! I didn't ask you to label the level of  
difficulty ​of the question, ​I asked ​ ​"​How ​m​any  
cities will I see after I have been duplicated?​"​, Answer the  
damn question.


Read the whole paragraph. It helps to know that it is easy.




​> ​You seem to agree that there will be two copies, each one in  
one city. So​ [blah blah blah]


​More stalling! I want an integer​ and nothing else, you're a  
mathematician you must know what a integer is.


​> ​the H-guy, which has survived in both cities, can see only  
one city


​So let's see, the H-guy​ ​ has survived in ​2​ cities​  
but ​the H-guy​ can only see one city


You did agree on this.




because 1+1=1​.


There is no paradox. It is trivial that with comp, after the  
duplication, all the copies feels to be unique in once place, with a  
doppel at the other place.






​> ​There is no paradox,

​I agree, paradoxes are interesting and clever, gibberish is  
neither.



Here are your "mistakes of the day".

1) When understanding, you ask what is the interest, without simply  
moving at the next step to see why we do all this.

2) You misquote the comment, or quote them not entirely.
3) You attribute bad intention when there are none.
4) You confused again the 1p view with the 3p view.
5) You do joke to avoid the question asked (and thus I asked it again;  
what do your write in the diary in Helsinki about what you, in  
Helsinki, can expect to live). I can accept something like "death, or  
Saint-Peter, or Santa Klaus" from an opponent to Mechanism. If you  
believe Mechanism is false, you can in some sense expect anything. But  
from a computationalist it is pure nonsense, not even laughable.


Please, you said that everything is predictable, so I ask you to make  
that statement more clear and precise by telling what is it that you  
write in the personal diary in Helsinki about what you expect to live.  
It is understood that the personal diary will be duplicated along with  
you.


Bruno






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.


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.


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

2017-09-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 7:39 pm, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam 
> 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.
>

There could be an infinite number of copies but each one of them will have
THE first person perspective.

​> ​
>> (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?​
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> 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.
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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")

2017-09-29 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​
>> ​>> ​
>> Congratulation on saying ​
>> ​"​
>> a first person viewpoint
>> ​" not "the
>> first person viewpoint
>> ​"!
>> ​ I think the word "expect" is unnecessary but in general I
>> have no problem with that question nor the answer, and it's all 100%
>> predictable.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> Nice. So what is the prediction that you write in the diary (in Helsinki)?
>

​I predict the one and only one thing I will see tomorrow after I become
two is Santa Clause's workshop.  ​


> ​> ​
> The question is what do you expect to live when going through such
> experiment.
>

​Why is what you expect to see tomorrow more important than what it turns
out you actually see tomorrow? An even more important question is ​ "What
one and only one thing will "you" mean tomorrow​ if "you" is duplicated and
"you" becomes two today?"

​>> ​
>> But I still have a *huge* problem with "How any cities will I see after
>> I have been duplicated?".
>
>
> ​> ​
> That is weird, as it is very easy.
>

​
Quit stalling! I didn't ask you to label the level of difficulty
​of the question, ​
I asked
​ ​
"​
How
​m​
any cities will I see after I have been duplicated?
​"​, Answer the damn question.

​> ​
> You seem to agree that there will be two copies, each one in one city. So
> ​ [blah blah blah]
>

​More stalling! I want an integer​ and nothing else, you're a mathematician
you must know what a integer is.



> ​> ​
> the H-guy, which has survived in both cities, can see only one city
>

​So let's see,
the H-guy
​ ​
has survived in
​2​
 cities
​ but ​
the H-guy
​ can only see one city because 1+1=1​.


> ​> ​
> There is no paradox,
>

​I agree, paradoxes are interesting and clever, gibberish is neither.

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")

2017-09-29 Thread Terren Suydam
Oh, don't be so humble. You did good today.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:23 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> There's one stream of consciousness.
>> ​ ​
>> And you correctly realized that nobody can *ever* tell you if that one
>> stream of consciousness is in Moscow or in Washington.
>>
>
> ​I would go even further than that, nobody can  *ever* tell me the answer
> and nobody can *ever* tell me what the question was either.
>
>   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.
>

-- 
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")

2017-09-29 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​> ​
> There's one stream of consciousness.
> ​ ​
> And you correctly realized that nobody can *ever* tell you if that one
> stream of consciousness is in Moscow or in Washington.
>

​I would go even further than that, nobody can  *ever* tell me the answer
and nobody can *ever* tell me what the question was either.

  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")

2017-09-29 Thread Terren Suydam
No, dude, you finally got it.

There's one stream of consciousness. And you correctly realized that nobody
can *ever* tell you if that one stream of consciousness is in Moscow or in
Washington. It took some prodding to get you to see that, but I'd like to
think it was worth the effort. Don't thank me though, you did all the work!

I'm glad that's over!

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:02 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​
>>> ​>> ​
>>> Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that ​
>>>  one stream of consciousness
>>> ​ is in Moscow or Washington?​
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person indeterminacy. I'll
>> get the champagne.
>>
>
> ​That's it? Bruno's great discovery is that ambiguous questions have no
> answers? I have found one on my own, I call it cat color indeterminacy:
>
>  "Today I have two cats a black cat and a white cat, tomorrow what will be
> the color of the one and only cat that I have ever had?".
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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")

2017-09-29 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​
>> ​>> ​
>> Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that ​
>>  one stream of consciousness
>> ​ is in Moscow or Washington?​
>>
>
> ​> ​
> Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person indeterminacy. I'll
> get the champagne.
>

​That's it? Bruno's great discovery is that ambiguous questions have no
answers? I have found one on my own, I call it cat color indeterminacy:

 "Today I have two cats a black cat and a white cat, tomorrow what will be
the color of the one and only cat that I have ever had?".

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")

2017-09-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2017-09-29 19:51 GMT+02:00 Terren Suydam :

> ​Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that ​
>>  one stream of consciousness
>> ​ is in Moscow or Washington?​
>>
>
> Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person indeterminacy. I'll
> get the champagne.
>

 Don't be too quick... we'll still be exactly at the same step in 10
years...



> --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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")

2017-09-29 Thread Terren Suydam
>
> ​Then why can't anybody *ever* tell me if that ​
>  one stream of consciousness
> ​ is in Moscow or Washington?​
>

Congratulations, you just discovered the first-person indeterminacy. I'll
get the champagne.

-- 
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")

2017-09-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2017-09-29 19:43 GMT+02:00 John Clark :

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> maybe half peepee half bad faith...
>
>
>
> ​Hey ​
> Quentin
> ​ I just had a great idea, go fuck yourself.
>

Yeah I'm aware of the peepee idea "you" have... But I shouldn't use "you"
as "you" don't know what it means, as "you" seems to say that "I" is
confusing in a world where there exist approximatilly 7.5 billions minus
one "I" who have no problem pointing to themselves when using it.

Quentin


>
> Sincerely
>
>  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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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")

2017-09-29 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

​> ​
> maybe half peepee half bad faith...



​Hey ​
Quentin
​ I just had a great idea, go fuck yourself.

Sincerely

 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")

2017-09-29 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam 
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?​


> ​> ​
> 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.


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

2017-09-29 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Sep 2017, at 21:07, John Clark wrote:




On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​The non-ambiguous question is how many cities can any  
"Helsinky-candidate" believing in computationalism, expect to see  
from a first person viewpoint just after pushing the button. The  
answer is the non ambguous "1",


​Congratulation on saying ​​"​a first person viewpoint​"  
not "the first person viewpoint​"! ​ I think the word "expect" is  
unnecessary but in general I have no problem with that question nor  
the answer, and it's all 100% predictable.



Nice. So what is the prediction that you write in the diary (in  
Helsinki)?




I also have no problem with the question "How many ​first person  
viewpoint​s ​of the Helsinki-remembering man will there be just  
after pushing the ​button?".​ The non-ambiguous completely  
predictable answer is "2".


Correct, but that is the 3p description given in the details of the  
experiment. The question is what do you expect to live when going  
through such experiment.





But I still have a huge problem with "How any cities will I see  
after I have been duplicated?".



That is weird, as it is very easy. You seem to agree that there will  
be two copies, each one in one city. So they (the copies)  will both  
see one city. So, assuming mechanism, it is obvious that for all first  
person experiences possibly accessible by the Helsinki-guy, in all  
cases, the H-guy, which has survived in both cities, can see only one  
city (and can only imagine his doppelganger seeing the other city). So  
P("one city") = 1, despite being objectively in the two cities from a  
third person perspective. There is no paradox, just objective  
(provable) "subjective indeterminacy".


Bruno






​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.


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.


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

2017-09-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2017-09-29 1:33 GMT+02:00 John Clark :

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> The question is “what city will I see tomorrow”.
>>
>
> ​I know, and​
>
> ​it's gibberish because if tomorrow "I" doesn't mean a person who
> remembers being asked that question today then even Mr. I doesn't know what
> "I" will refer to tomorrow.
>
>
>> ​>​
>> You know what a city is,
>>
>
> ​Yes.​
>
>
> ​> ​
>> you know what seeing is
>>
>
> ​Yes.​
>
>
> ​> ​
>> you agree that I will survive
>>
>
> ​There is no agreement on that. ​
> Stathis Papaioannou
> ​will survive,  but unfortunately John Clark doesn't know who Mr. I is so
> has no opinion on what the fate of that gentleman will be.
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> But “I” is singular,
>>
>
> ​Exactly, and "I" has been duplicated ​so that personal pronoun can no
> longer be used by anyone who isn't a great fan of gibberish.
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> a single person cannot see both cities,
>>
>
> ​How is that relevant? The question concerns the future and remembering
> asking the question in the past, and a
>  single person
> ​ doesn't meet those specifications, ​two people do.
>
>
> ​>​
>> Imagination is limited by logic - I can’t imagine a square circle because
>> it is meaningless.
>>
>
> ​So is asking what *one *and only *one* city *"I"* will see after *"I" *have
> become *two*!
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> But I can imagine seeing one or other city with 1/2 probability;
>>
>
> ​I can't. After it's all over I can ​
> imagine
> ​having ​
> see
> ​n​
>  Moscow or having not seen it, but I can not imagine ​half seeing Moscow
> and half not seeing it.
>


Must be difficult to ask you to play coin flip... Can't imagine seeing you
wandering how you could see half head, half tail... bad faith always. or
peepee ? not sure now, maybe half peepee half bad faith...


> And
> probability
> ​ has no meaning if you can't specify what the probability is about, and
> if it's what Mr. You will or will not see then you can't because even Mr.
> You doesn't know what Mr. You means with all those Mr. You duplicating
> machines around. ​
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> it is meaningful, it is what I anticipate will happen,
>>
>
> ​I expect to see Santa Clauses workshop. Unlike questions all statements
> about expectations are meaningful, ​
>
> ​but not all of ​them turn out to be true.
>
>  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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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")

2017-09-28 Thread Terren Suydam
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 4:04 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>>> ​Then which *ONE* out of that infinite number is ​
>>> ​"*THE"*
>>>  stream of consciousness
>>>
>>
>
> ​> ​
>> ​?​
>> You're asking that question from the objective, third-person point of
>> view, which is not relevant to the thought experiment.
>>
>
> ​
> I
> ​remind ​
> you that it was you not me that said to understand
> ​ ​
> the though experiment I need to follow
> *​"​THE*
> *​"* ​
> stream of consciousness
> ​, but which steam needs following, the Moscow stream or the Washington
> stream? If I ask you for directions and you say "just keep following this
> road" and then the road forks your instructions don't help me get to my
> intended destination.​
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> If you want to engage with the thought experiment, then you must consider
>> this from the first person.
>>
>
> Over and over and over
> ​again ​
> the
> ​exact ​
> same mistake is made. In a world with
> ​ ​
> Terren Suydam
> ​ duplicating machines there is no such thing as *"THE"* first person! ​
>
> ​>>
>>> I don't know about Mr. You but ​
>>> Terren Suydam
>>> ​ can ​
>>> experience more than one city at the same time
>>> ​ if there are ​
>>> Terren Suydam
>>> ​ duplicating machines.
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> Objectively, yes. Experientially, no.
>>
>
> I have no idea what that means because I have proof that Terren Suydam
> ​ experienced Moscow and
> Terren Suydam
> ​ experienced Washington.  What Mr. You experienced nobody knows, not even
> Mr. You.
>
> ​>> ​
>>> Terren Suydam
>>> ​ just said a infinite ​number of copies were made, and every single one
>>> of them remembers wondering what one and only one city they would end up
>>> seeing. So what turned out to be the one and only one correct answer to the
>>> question asked yesterday "What city will I see tomorrow ?" If the answer
>>> isn't just unknown but is nonexistent then it wasn't a question.
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> Objectively, it may be gibberish,
>>
>
> ​There is no "may" about it.​
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> but from the first-person point of view, it's not.
>>
>
> Then what one and only one city ended up being seen by
> *​"​THE*
> *​"* ​
> first-person point of view
> ​?? If it's not gibberish then there is a answer, so let's have it!​
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> Earlier we encountered a different question that was gibberish from the
>> objective point of view, but intelligible from the first-person point of
>> view.
>>
>
> ​I don't know what you're referring to ​
> but* ​"*
> *THE" *​
> first-person point of view
> ​ is itself not ​
> intelligible
> ​ if ​
> first-person point of view
> ​ duplicating machines exist, and in this thought experiment they do. ​
>
> ​John K Clark​
>

This thought experiment must be analyzed from the first person perspective
(and by that I'm referring to the grammatical person
). As a result there are
constraints you have to adhere to:

   - There is only one stream of consciousness, ever, despite the
   possibility of its bifurcation (no different from many-worlds)
   - The only reality a person experiences is the one inside their head.
   Thanks to this, we never have to get into pronouns, or the actual objective
   state of affairs.

You seem to have a hang-up that prevents you from adopting that perspective
and subjecting your analysis to those constraints. Instead, you
compulsively return to questions about the objective reality, talking in
terms of multiple consciousnesses, and getting confused about the referents
of grammatical conventions. And you blame that gibberish on the thought
experiment itself, when it's simply your failure to recognize that without
taking those constraints into account, you've lost the plot.

If you want to continue this, great, but I'm not going to go around in
circles because you refuse to engage with those constraints.

-- 
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")

2017-09-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 8:02 pm, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>>> ​I do expect to survive the
>>> copying process
>>> ​, even better I expect I'll have a backup, although why my expectations
>>> should be of interest to anyone but me I don't know. ​
>>>
>>
>> Then the question “what future experiences will I have” is not
>> nonsensical.
>>
>
> ​It's not ​
> nonsensical
> ​ in our everyday world ​to ask "What one and only one city will I see
> tomorrow?" because it's clear what "I" will mean tomorrow, but people
> duplicating machines don't yet exist in our everyday world because of
> technological, not philosophical, limitations. In our everyday world the I
> of tomorrow has a unique unambiguous meaning, the only being tomorrow that
> will remember being John Clark today.
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> If it were then I could not have the expectation of surviving,
>>
>
> ​The nonsense question is NOT "Will I survive tomorrow after I have been
> duplicated?", that is a real question with a real answer; and it is yes
> because something  (actually 2 things) tomorrow will remember being John
> Clark today. The nonsense question is "What one and only one city will I
> see tomorrow after I have been duplicated?" ​
>
>

The question is “what city will I see tomorrow”. You know what a city is,
you know what seeing is, you agree that I will survive so “I” has meaning
for you. It seems that you agree the question is meaningful, you just don’t
agree that I will see one city - which means that I will see two cities.
But “I” is singular, and a single person cannot see both cities, as a
matter of empirical fact.

​> ​
>> I could not conceive of having future experiences if “I” loses meaning
>> when I contemplate the post-duplication future.
>>
>
> ​Sure you can, you can conceive of being in Santa Clauses's workshop if
> you want; imagination is not limited by reality.
>

Imagination is limited by logic - I can’t imagine a square circle because
it is meaningless. But I can imagine seeing one or other city with 1/2
probability; it is meaningful, it is what I anticipate will happen, and it
is consistent with the reports of copies  who have been through duplication
multiple times.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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")

2017-09-28 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​>> ​
>> ​Then which *ONE* out of that infinite number is ​
>> ​"*THE"*
>>  stream of consciousness
>>
>

​> ​
> ​?​
> You're asking that question from the objective, third-person point of
> view, which is not relevant to the thought experiment.
>

​
I
​remind ​
you that it was you not me that said to understand
​ ​
the though experiment I need to follow
*​"​THE*
*​"* ​
stream of consciousness
​, but which steam needs following, the Moscow stream or the Washington
stream? If I ask you for directions and you say "just keep following this
road" and then the road forks your instructions don't help me get to my
intended destination.​


> ​> ​
> If you want to engage with the thought experiment, then you must consider
> this from the first person.
>

Over and over and over
​again ​
the
​exact ​
same mistake is made. In a world with
​ ​
Terren Suydam
​ duplicating machines there is no such thing as *"THE"* first person! ​

​>>
>> I don't know about Mr. You but ​
>> Terren Suydam
>> ​ can ​
>> experience more than one city at the same time
>> ​ if there are ​
>> Terren Suydam
>> ​ duplicating machines.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> Objectively, yes. Experientially, no.
>

I have no idea what that means because I have proof that Terren Suydam
​ experienced Moscow and
Terren Suydam
​ experienced Washington.  What Mr. You experienced nobody knows, not even
Mr. You.

​>> ​
>> Terren Suydam
>> ​ just said a infinite ​number of copies were made, and every single one
>> of them remembers wondering what one and only one city they would end up
>> seeing. So what turned out to be the one and only one correct answer to the
>> question asked yesterday "What city will I see tomorrow ?" If the answer
>> isn't just unknown but is nonexistent then it wasn't a question.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> Objectively, it may be gibberish,
>

​There is no "may" about it.​



> ​> ​
> but from the first-person point of view, it's not.
>

Then what one and only one city ended up being seen by
*​"​THE*
*​"* ​
first-person point of view
​?? If it's not gibberish then there is a answer, so let's have it!​


> ​> ​
> Earlier we encountered a different question that was gibberish from the
> objective point of view, but intelligible from the first-person point of
> view.
>

​I don't know what you're referring to ​
but* ​"*
*THE" *​
first-person point of view
​ is itself not ​
intelligible
​ if ​
first-person point of view
​ duplicating machines exist, and in this thought experiment they do. ​

​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")

2017-09-27 Thread Terren Suydam
>
>
> ​Then which *ONE* out of that infinite number is ​
> ​"*THE"*
>  stream of consciousness
> ​?​
>

You're asking that question from the objective, third-person point of view,
which is not relevant to the thought experiment. If you want to engage with
the thought experiment, then you must consider this from the first person.
If you do that, then you'll have to approach the problem knowing the
constraint that there is only ever one consciousness experienced by a
person.


> ​> ​
>> You agreed earlier that you cannot experience more than one city at the
>> same time.
>>
>
> ​I don't know about Mr. You but ​
> Terren Suydam
> ​ can ​
> experience more than one city at the same time
> ​ if there are ​
> Terren Suydam
> ​ duplicating machines.
>

Objectively, yes. Experientially, no.


>
>> This is the view from inside, the inner experience. There is only ever
>> one of them.
>>
>
> Terren Suydam
> ​ just said a infinite ​number of copies were made, and every single one
> of them remembers wondering what one and only one city they would end up
> seeing. So what turned out to be the one and only one correct answer to the
> question asked yesterday "What city will I see tomorrow ?" If the answer
> isn't just unknown but is nonexistent then it wasn't a question.
>

Objectively, it may be gibberish, but from the first-person point of view,
it's not.

Earlier we encountered a different question that was gibberish from the
objective point of view, but intelligible from the first-person point of
view. This is like that.

​> ​
>> You know this to be true:
>>
>
> ​I know it's true that everybody can only sees one stream of
> consciousness ​when looking from the present into the past, but the future
> behaves differently than the past, if they didn't they wouldn't need to
> have different names.
>
> ​And the question concerns the future not the past.​
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> you may behave *as if* others are conscious, but you only ever know for
>> sure that one person is conscious.
>>
>
> ​That is part of our existence even today even without people duplicating
> machines.  ​
>
>
> ​> ​
>>  I believe that two people will say that they are John Clark, but I won't
>> have a clue if they are actually conscious or not.
>>
>
> ​Oh I think you'll have a clue, but at any rate
> I hope you don't believe the copy of me
> ​would be ​
> less likely to be conscious
> ​than​
>  the "original", but if you do
> ​believe that ​
> please explain what's so original about the original.
> ​
>

I don't know if the original is conscious either, if I'm adopting the
third-person perspective.

-- 
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")

2017-09-27 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​> ​
> The non-ambiguous question is how many cities can any "Helsinky-candidate"
> believing in computationalism, expect to see from a first person viewpoint
> just after pushing the button. The answer is the non ambguous "1",
>

​Congratulation on saying ​
​"​
a first person viewpoint
​" not "the
first person viewpoint
​"!
​ I think the word "expect" is unnecessary but in general I
have no problem with that question nor the answer, and it's all 100%
predictable. I also have no problem with the question "How many ​
first person viewpoint
​s ​of the Helsinki-remembering man will there be
just after pushing the
​button?".​ The non-ambiguous completely predictable answer is "2". But I
still have a *huge* problem with "How any cities will I see after I have
been duplicated?".

​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")

2017-09-27 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​>> ​
>> ​If there is more than one then it would be very foolish to ask "what one
>> and only one thing will *you* see after *you* become two?".
>>
>

​> ​
> I'm not asking that.
>

​Then what are you asking??

​>> ​
>> ​I don't know how to follow ​"*THE"*
>>  stream of consciousness
>> ​ and don't even know what it means because there are two not one.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> No, there is only one, even if there are infinite diverging copies.
>

​Then which *ONE* out of that infinite number is ​
​"*THE"*
 stream of consciousness
​?​



> ​> ​
> You agreed earlier that you cannot experience more than one city at the
> same time.
>

​I don't know about Mr. You but ​
Terren Suydam
​ can ​
experience more than one city at the same time
​ if there are ​
Terren Suydam
​ duplicating machines.


> ​> ​
> Any other minds in other cities are not accessible to a copy.
>

​So what?​


> This is the view from inside, the inner experience. There is only ever one
> of them.
>

Terren Suydam
​ just said a infinite ​number of copies were made, and every single one of
them remembers wondering what one and only one city they would end up
seeing. So what turned out to be the one and only one correct answer to the
question asked yesterday "What city will I see tomorrow ?" If the answer
isn't just unknown but is nonexistent then it wasn't a question.


> ​> ​
> You know this to be true:
>

​I know it's true that everybody can only sees one stream of consciousness
​when looking from the present into the past, but the future behaves
differently than the past, if they didn't they wouldn't need to have
different names.

​And the question concerns the future not the past.​


> ​> ​
> you may behave *as if* others are conscious, but you only ever know for
> sure that one person is conscious.
>

​That is part of our existence even today even without people duplicating
machines.  ​


​> ​
>  I believe that two people will say that they are John Clark, but I won't
> have a clue if they are actually conscious or not.
>

​Oh I think you'll have a clue, but at any rate
I hope you don't believe the copy of me
​would be ​
less likely to be conscious
​than​
 the "original", but if you do
​believe that ​
please explain what's so original about the original.
​

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")

2017-09-27 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

​> ​
>> ​I do expect to survive the
>> copying process
>> ​, even better I expect I'll have a backup, although why my expectations
>> should be of interest to anyone but me I don't know. ​
>>
>
> Then the question “what future experiences will I have” is not nonsensical.
>

​It's not ​
nonsensical
​ in our everyday world ​to ask "What one and only one city will I see
tomorrow?" because it's clear what "I" will mean tomorrow, but people
duplicating machines don't yet exist in our everyday world because of
technological, not philosophical, limitations. In our everyday world the I
of tomorrow has a unique unambiguous meaning, the only being tomorrow that
will remember being John Clark today.


> ​> ​
> If it were then I could not have the expectation of surviving,
>

​The nonsense question is NOT "Will I survive tomorrow after I have been
duplicated?", that is a real question with a real answer; and it is yes
because something  (actually 2 things) tomorrow will remember being John
Clark today. The nonsense question is "What one and only one city will I
see tomorrow after I have been duplicated?" ​



> ​> ​
> I could not conceive of having future experiences if “I” loses meaning
> when I contemplate the post-duplication future.
>

​Sure you can, you can conceive of being in Santa Clauses's workshop if you
want; imagination is not limited by reality.

 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")

2017-09-27 Thread Terren Suydam
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:35 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​
>>> ​>> ​
>>> The expectations of what will happen will change from person to person,
>>> but the reality of what actually did happen will not.
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> The reality of what actually does happen is not available to anyone in
>> the thought experiment,
>>
>
> ​The reality of who does or does not have the memories of being the
> Helsinki man yesterday Is ​
> available
> ​ to anyone by simply asking the Moscow man and the Washington man about
> things the Helsinki man knew.
>

Yes, I probably could have stated my point better. Which is: the reality of
what happens to all the copies is not available to any one copy. The only
reality available to a copy is the contents of their own mind.


>
> ​>
 ​>>​
 t​
 o open their eyes to a single city.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​>> ​
>>> ​If he's a fool he might indeed expect that, but I don't much care what
>>> fools think. But ask yourself this, how many fools tomorrow will ​remember
>>> being asked the question today? I maintain the answer is 2 fools not one.
>>> Do you disagree?
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> It's irrelevant.
>>
>
> ​It's not irrelevant if the survival of the Helsinki man means somebody
> today remembers being the Helsinki man yesterday; and I can't imagine what
> else the survival of the Helsinki man could mean.  ​
>
>

What I'm saying is irrelevant is how many copies are actually created.
Nothing you said there makes that relevant. The survival of Helsinki man is
dependent only on at least one copy being made.


>
> ​> ​
>> The actual number of copies is irrelevant to the thought experiment, as
>> long as it's more than one.
>>
>
> ​If there is more than one then it would be very foolish to ask "what one
> and only one thing will *you* see after *you* become two?". And that's why
> the thought experiment ​is worthless.
>
>

I'm not asking that.


> ​> ​
>> before you enter the duplicator, what do you (the Helsinki you) expect to
>> experience?
>>
>
> ​I just don't get it! Why do you care what some jackass expects today but
> don't care who will remembers being that jackass ​tomorrow?
>
>

I didn't say I don't care who remembers being Helsinki man.


>
> > ​
>> Consider one's experience before entering the duplicator, and the
>> experience after. Follow the stream of consciousness, as if you were the
>> one entering the duplicator,
>>
>
> ​I don't know how to follow ​"*THE"*
>  stream of consciousness
> ​ and don't even know what it means because there are two not one.
>

No, there is only one, even if there are infinite diverging copies. You
agreed earlier that you cannot experience more than one city at the same
time. Any other minds in other cities are not accessible to a copy.  This
is the view from inside, the inner experience. There is only ever one of
them.  You know this to be true: you may behave *as if* others are
conscious, but you only ever know for sure that one person is conscious.

But I know what you mean. You're talking about the objective view, the view
from nowhere. That view is irrelevant to the thought experiment, because we
cannot know from that view who is conscious and who isn't.  It is possible,
for example, that the duplication procedure produces zombies with
probability *p*.


>
>
>> ​> ​
>> what happens on the other side?
>>
>
> ​John Clark will be in two cities on the other side, if you don't believe
> me then go to the two cities and see if there is anybody in them named John
> Clark.
>

I believe you. Well, I believe that two people will say that they are John
Clark, but I won't have a clue if they are actually conscious or not.

-- 
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")

2017-09-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Sep 2017, at 21:04, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Terren Suydam  wrote:


​> ​In this situation, does the copy that opens his eyes in  
Barcelona only see Barcelona?


​Obviously.​


​> ​And the copy that opens his eyes in Paris only see Paris?

​Obviously. And equally obvious John Clark will end up seeing 2  
cities. And speaking of predictions, I predict that Terry Suydam  
will next write the following sequence of words "So how many cities  
will you end up seeing?" and will claim that it must be a question  
because there is a question mark at the end of the word sequence.


It is an ambiguous question. The non-ambiguous question is how many  
cities can any "Helsinky-candidate" believing in computationalism,  
expect to see from a first person viewpoint just after pushing the  
button. The answer is the non ambguous "1", as both copies will  
immediately confirm.


Bruno





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.


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.


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

2017-09-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Sep 2017, at 16:58, John Clark wrote:




On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​It is the specific city that I will feel be in that I cannot  
predict.


​Because when talking about the future AFTER going through a "I"  
duplicating ​ ​machine the personal pronoun "I​" becomes  
ambiguous. Nobody can make the prediction because nobody knows what  
is suposed to be predicted.



'I" is an indexical. It is the d'd' in d'd' = F(d'd'), if you have  
look at some of my explanation how how to define indexical notions in  
arithmetic.  It referes to the person interviwed locally. The point is  
that when I ask the M-man (resp. the W-man) if his prediction was  
correct, he has to look at his diary (written in Helsinki, and  
duplicated with him), and compare it with what he sees. Ig the diary  
contains "W and M" it contradicts the experience lived by both. If it  
contains "W" (resp M), it contradicts half of the experiences, and if  
it contained W v M" it is a success for both.


​> ​I can explain more if you tell me if you agree that P(tea) =  
1.


​I've already answered that, no I don't agree. I have no reason to  
believe you will keep your promise about the tea


Given that the promise is part of the protocol, here, this is again a  
change of the protocol. You can't reason like that. It is not valid.




and I expect it is far more likely I will see ​Santa Claus's  
workshop​ than any tea. However I still don't understand why you're  
more interested in my expectations than the nature of reality.


Move on step 4, and sequitur. You will be enlightened.

Bruno







 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.


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.


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

2017-09-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Sep 2017, at 22:17, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


you must not neglect the question asked

​What question?  I saw words and question marks but I saw no  
question.​


The question is always the same. Just read the posts and the papers.  
It is "what could the helsinki guy expect to live as first person  
experience in the WM-duplication?". Is it "I will die plain and  
simple", or "I will survive"?
Well, you have already answer that you will survive. So now, the  
question is "do you expect to feel, from an 1p perspective, to be in  
one city or to be in two city"?. the answer is obvious (assuming of  
course computationalism).







​> ​which concerns the first person experience expected.

​Which THE the first person experience is the prediction suposed to  
be about,


Both, of course. "THE" refers to the only city EACH copies will seen.






John Clark's THE
first person experience in Helsinki John Clark's THE first person  
experience in Moscow or
John Clark's THE first person experience in Washington? John Clark  
predicts that Bruno's
answer will contain a gaggle of personal pronouns with no referent,  
talk about THE 1p as if

there were only one, or do both.



Just keep the 1p and 3p views difference into account, and all  
ambiguities on person vanish away. What remains is only that the  
copies have to admit that in Helsinki, they could not have written the  
city seen now in advance.






​> ​I am asking just the H-man, about what he expects

​For all I know​ ​the H-man​ ​expects​ ​Santa Claus's  
workshop, but I neither know nor care what the
H-man expects,I only care who will remember ​​tomorrow being the  
H-man today, and two men

will not one.


If you don't care, just say nothing. But you do seem care a lot.





Keep in mind that UDA is​...

​babytalk. ​


So you lost the argument if this is all what you can say.








​> ​You know you will push on a button,

​Yes, I know who "you" refers to up to this point, but after that  
the word "you" must be abandoned.​



There are no reason. After the experience "you" remains as useful as  
ever, but to remain consistent with computationalism, we just need to  
take into account the 1p/3p distinction which has been introduced and  
explain in the second step of the UD Argument.






 open a door and see a city

​John Clark opens 2 doors and ​ ​sees 2 cities.​



In the 3p description, but this is just a description of the protocol.





​> ​Don't patronize

No I think I’m going to continue to patronize


"patronizing" is insulting. In all circumstances.




as long as you continue to assume the meaning
of personal pronouns is ​always​ obvious even in a world that  
contains personal pronoun duplicating

machines as ​is done​ in the following:


I don't say it is obvious. Just "simple" once you keep the 1p and 3p  
distinction into account, which of course is important when working in  
a theory of mind.






"It is the specific city that I will feel be in that I cannot  
predict.”


>​> ​No, he should not expect to get tea he should expect the  
promise to be broken and it would be
better if he expected to end up in​ ​Santa Claus's workshop  
instead.Why should he expect that?
Because he will happier if he does,Santa Claus's​ ​workshop sound  
like more fun than drinking tea
Of course expectations need not turn out to be correct to bring  
happiness


​> ​Good joke.

I’m not joking.Santa Claus's workshop is as good a response as any  
to a meaningless sequence of

words followed be a question mark​.​


You make it meaningless by forgetting that the question is on the, or  
"a" if you prefer,  future first person experience. THE one which both  
are living after. The M-man man will say, yes I got a definite result  
among {W, M}, and the W-man too, but, as they could have guess in  
Helsinki, none of them live the experience of being in the two city at  
once, and the split has definitely lead to getting one bit of  
information for both of them. Both have to acknowledge the FPI, or be  
inconsistent.


Bruno





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.


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 

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

2017-09-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Sep 2017, at 23:13, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
​>​>​ ​nobody can feel to be in two places at once with  
computationalism

​​> ​That is not a sacred axiom of computationalism!


​> ​It is simple consequence.

​Show me how! Explain to me why computers can't do 2 things at the  
same time.


They can. But if you duplicate a computer and allow them two different  
continuations, they cannot live or experience them both at once. We  
are reasoning in a precise context with a precise protocol. You over- 
generalize our claim.




Then tell me
why even with todays technology by using telepresence you can feel  
like you're in one place

even though you're brain is in another place far away.


Sure. But that is just changing the protocole. You are not  
invalidating an argument, but a generalization you are doing of it.







​>> ​The Moscow man and the Washington man could be merged back  
together and the resulting
Moscow/Washington man would have vivid memories of being in both  
cities at exactly the ​\​same time, as well as having memories of  
being just the Helsinki man.​


> ​In a metaphorical sense?

​No, in a literal sense.​


Then that is ambiguous, and again, even if we could make sense of your  
claim, that is a change of the protocol irrelevant for the WM- 
duplication. That has been shown in my last post. let us look at your  
comment ...





​> ​But strictly speaking, after fusing, the guy will remember  
having been in only one city


If after fusing the Moscow man and the Washington man back  
together ​and ​the resulting being
remembers​ ​having been in only one city​ don't you think it's  
a little odd that being is unable to
say what the name of that one and only one city is?​​ I think  
it's odd.​


It is not odd. You tell me that he has fused the two memories, and the  
two memories contains the content" I am in only one city, and I could  
not have written in Helsinki that unique name in the diary. That only  
confirms the first person indeterminacy.







without having been able to predict which one in​ ​Helsinki  
before.


Just imagine how that could be like. In helsinki the guy wrote  
"Washington" in his diary. he got duplicated and, in the 3-1p  
description, he lives the two incompatible experiences:


"I see Washington, my diary contains "Washington", so my bet was  
correct, I win!"


and

"I see Moscow, my diary contains "Washington", so my bet was wrong, I  
lost the bet".


After fusing the memory (admitting we can make sense of that), he  
knows that the bet is incorrect, given that he remembers that it  
failed in Moscow, and we have defined "correct prediction" when all  
copies agree on it.






​So if you asked the newly refused Moscow/Washington man "What is  
the name of that one and
only one city you ended up seeing after ​ Helsinki?", do you think  
he'd give you that one and only
one name or do you think he's look at you like you were crazy for  
asking such a thing?


The question is on the 1p expected before the pushing the button, on  
which cities he would see after opening the door.







> That's right, "he" still doesn't know and "he" will NEVER know  
because nobody will ever

know what "he" means in the above.


He remembers quite well that in one city, the prediction was false,  
and that is enough to conclude, after the fusing, that if the  
experience is iterated again, he still cannot predict a specific city,  
although he can predict that it belongs to {W, M}.







​> ​Then computationalism is false.

​Bullshit.​

​> ​Of course the helsinki man will be able to answer and verify  
the prediction.


 ​T​he ​Helsinki man​?!! ​T​he ​Helsinki man​ can't  
verify anything because after the duplication nobody

 is in Helsinki anymore. ​


We did agree that the Helsinki man survives in both city, but of  
course lives the experience of one city.
You change the identity criterion that you have accepted before. That  
is not a valid way to reason.








​>>​​I still don't understand why you're more interested ​in  
expectations than reality


​> ​Reality is the goal.

​Expectations are often proven to be wrong, reality never is.​ ​


Yes, but a physical law is supposed to help linking expectation and  
some reality. Cf Einstein criteria of reality, or just the goal of  
fundamental science.


So in this posts, you change the protocol, and/or you change the  
definition/criterion of personal identity. Hardly convincing.


Bruno



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 

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

2017-09-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Sep 2017, at 01:35, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Terren Suydam  wrote:


​​>> ​The expectations of what will happen will change from  
person to person, but the reality of what actually did happen will  
not.


​> ​The reality of what actually does happen is not available to  
anyone in the thought experiment,


​The reality of who does or does not have the memories of being the  
Helsinki man yesterday Is ​available​ to anyone by simply asking  
the Moscow man and the Washington man about things the Helsinki man  
knew.


​>​>>​ t​o open their eyes to a single city.

​>> ​​If he's a fool he might indeed expect that, but I don't  
much care what fools think. But ask yourself this, how many fools  
tomorrow will ​remember being asked the question today? I maintain  
the answer is 2 fools not one. Do you disagree?


​> ​It's irrelevant.

​It's not irrelevant if the survival of the Helsinki man means  
somebody today remembers being the Helsinki man yesterday; and I  
can't imagine what else the survival of the Helsinki man could  
mean.  ​


​> ​The actual number of copies is irrelevant to the thought  
experiment, as long as it's more than one.


​If there is more than one then it would be very foolish to ask  
"what one and only one thing will *you* see after *you* become  
two?". And that's why the thought experiment ​is worthless.


​> ​before you enter the duplicator, what do you (the Helsinki  
you) expect to experience?


​I just don't get it! Why do you care what some jackass expects  
today but don't care who will remembers being that jackass ​ 
tomorrow?



To make the prediction on the personal first person experience, you  
*do need* to take into account what all copies will remember  
"tomorrow". They all remember seeing one city, and not knowing which  
one in advance. We take into account what all copies can say.






> ​Consider one's experience before entering the duplicator, and  
the experience after. Follow the stream of consciousness, as if you  
were the one entering the duplicator,


​I don't know how to follow ​"THE" stream of consciousness​ and  
don't even know what it means because there are two not one.


Not from any 1p available, and the question is on the 1p. There will  
be two 1p, but they are logically incompatible (with this protocol) so  
in Helsinki the candidate knows with certainty that he will see only  
one city, but without being able to write which one in his diary. So  
we get the First Person Indeterminacy (FPI). QED.


Bruno





​> ​what happens on the other side?

​John Clark will be in two cities on the other side, if you don't  
believe me then go to the two cities and see if there is anybody in  
them named John Clark.


John K Clark





As you agreed earlier, it's an experience of a single city.

--
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.


--
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.


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

2017-09-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Sep 2017, at 01:47, John Clark wrote:




On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:


​> ​It seems that you would want your assets distributed to the  
copies, ideally both of them, if not both then one, randomly chosen  
(“it doesn’t matter which one”).


​Yes. I want somebody tomorrow who remembers being me today because  
I prefer existence to nonexistence,  ​others may have a different  
preference and that's OK because there is no disputing matters of  
taste.


​> ​That’s what someone would do if they expected to survive  
the copying process.


​I do expect to survive the copying process​, even better I  
expect I'll have a backup, although why my expectations should be of  
interest to anyone but me I don't know. ​


You would have understood this since long he you could move to the  
next steps.


But for this you need to just answer the question about what the  
Helsinki guy can expect for his (his = the Helsinki guy) future  
*subjective experience*. The explanation will be that the whole  
science of physics will need to be a statistics on first person  
experience supported by the computations emulated in Arithmetic. That  
statistics can be made mathematically precise, (the pronouns are  
handled by the second recursion theorem) so this makes the  
computationalist hypothesis experimentally testable.


Bruno






J ohn 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.


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.


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

2017-09-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Sep 2017, at 02:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 1:48 am, John Clark   
wrote:


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:


​> ​It seems that you would want your assets distributed to the  
copies, ideally both of them, if not both then one, randomly chosen  
(“it doesn’t matter which one”).


​Yes. I want somebody tomorrow who remembers being me today because  
I prefer existence to nonexistence,  ​others may have a different  
preference and that's OK because there is no disputing matters of  
taste.


​> ​That’s what someone would do if they expected to survive  
the copying process.


​I do expect to survive the copying process​, even better I  
expect I'll have a backup, although why my expectations should be of  
interest to anyone but me I don't know. ​


Then the question “what future experiences will I have” is not  
nonsensical. If it were then I could not have the expectation of  
surviving, since to survive I must have future experiences, and I  
could not conceive of having future experiences if “I” loses  
meaning when I contemplate the post-duplication future.


Which explain why John Clark refuses to answer "P(tea) = ?".

He claims that he survives the duplication, but in the reasoning, he  
cannot make that explicit without seeing that this would entail that  
P(I survive in only one city) = 1 too, and so P(W v M) = 1.


John is clever, he use insults or simple omission to avoid the logical  
trap that he sees very well (confirming that he get the point, but  
does not want to concede it).


Bruno




--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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.


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

2017-09-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 1:48 am, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> It seems that you would want your assets distributed to the copies,
>> ideally both of them, if not both then one, randomly chosen (“it doesn’t
>> matter which one”).
>
>
> ​Yes. I want somebody tomorrow who remembers being me today because I
> prefer existence to nonexistence,  ​others may have a different preference
> and that's OK because there is no disputing matters of taste.
>
> ​> ​
>> That’s what someone would do if they expected to survive the copying
>> process.
>
>
> ​I do expect to survive the
> copying process
> ​, even better I expect I'll have a backup, although why my expectations
> should be of interest to anyone but me I don't know. ​
>

Then the question “what future experiences will I have” is not nonsensical.
If it were then I could not have the expectation of surviving, since to
survive I must have future experiences, and I could not conceive of having
future experiences if “I” loses meaning when I contemplate the
post-duplication future.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

​> ​
> It seems that you would want your assets distributed to the copies,
> ideally both of them, if not both then one, randomly chosen (“it doesn’t
> matter which one”).


​Yes. I want somebody tomorrow who remembers being me today because I
prefer existence to nonexistence,  ​others may have a different preference
and that's OK because there is no disputing matters of taste.

​> ​
> That’s what someone would do if they expected to survive the copying
> process.


​I do expect to survive the
copying process
​, even better I expect I'll have a backup, although why my expectations
should be of interest to anyone but me I don't know. ​

J ohn 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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​
>> ​>> ​
>> The expectations of what will happen will change from person to person,
>> but the reality of what actually did happen will not.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> The reality of what actually does happen is not available to anyone in the
> thought experiment,
>

​The reality of who does or does not have the memories of being the
Helsinki man yesterday Is ​
available
​ to anyone by simply asking the Moscow man and the Washington man about
things the Helsinki man knew.

​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> t​
>>> o open their eyes to a single city.
>>
>>
>> ​>> ​
>> ​If he's a fool he might indeed expect that, but I don't much care what
>> fools think. But ask yourself this, how many fools tomorrow will ​remember
>> being asked the question today? I maintain the answer is 2 fools not one.
>> Do you disagree?
>>
>
> ​> ​
> It's irrelevant.
>

​It's not irrelevant if the survival of the Helsinki man means somebody
today remembers being the Helsinki man yesterday; and I can't imagine what
else the survival of the Helsinki man could mean.  ​


​> ​
> The actual number of copies is irrelevant to the thought experiment, as
> long as it's more than one.
>

​If there is more than one then it would be very foolish to ask "what one
and only one thing will *you* see after *you* become two?". And that's why
the thought experiment ​is worthless.



> ​> ​
> before you enter the duplicator, what do you (the Helsinki you) expect to
> experience?
>

​I just don't get it! Why do you care what some jackass expects today but
don't care who will remembers being that jackass ​tomorrow?


> ​
> Consider one's experience before entering the duplicator, and the
> experience after. Follow the stream of consciousness, as if you were the
> one entering the duplicator,
>

​I don't know how to follow ​"*THE"*
 stream of consciousness
​ and don't even know what it means because there are two not one.


> ​> ​
> what happens on the other side?
>

​John Clark will be in two cities on the other side, if you don't believe
me then go to the two cities and see if there is anybody in them named John
Clark.

John K Clark






> As you agreed earlier, it's an experience of a single city.
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 at 4:44 pm, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>
> ​> ​
>> Asking about your expectations is an attempt to show what your implicit
>> beliefs about your future are.
>>
>
> OK, If you say "What one and only one city do you expect to
> ​see​
> ​
> after you walk into the
> ​ ​
> that "you" duplicating machine?" I would remain silent because it is not
> my habit to respond to any old string of words, not even if the string of
> words are placed in a
> ​ ​
> grammatically correct order, not even if there is a question mark at the
> end of
> ​that​
> ​
> string. I can't give a answer if I don't know the question and I don't.
>
> ​> ​
>> if you are duplicated in Washington and Moscow would you like your assets
>> to be distributed 50/50 to the copies
>>
>
> ​That would depend on my personal
> idiosyncrasies
> ​ and also​
>  on how rich I was, if I was only living at the subsistence level I'd want
> all my assets to go to only one of the copies, it doesn't matter which one,
> because that way at least one of them would survive; if I were a
> billionaire I might prefer a different arrangement, and you might like
> something else entirely. Who cares? There is no disputing matters of taste.
> I thought we were interested in grand philosophical ideas and the nature
> of reality not the trivial likes and dislikes of individuals.
>

It seems that you would want your assets distributed to the copies, ideally
both of them, if not both then one, randomly chosen (“it doesn’t matter
which one”). That’s what someone would do if they expected to survive the
copying process.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread Terren Suydam
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> So the expectation of anyone who enters a duplicator would be
>
>
> ​The expectations of what will happen will change from person to person,
> but the reality of what actually did happen will not.
>

The reality of what actually does happen is not available to anyone in the
thought experiment, beyond the inner reality of one's mind. Again, all
anyone has is what's in the contents of one's mind.


>
>> ​> t​
>> o open their eyes to a single city.
>
>
> ​If he's a fool he might indeed expect that, but I don't much care what
> fools think. But ask yourself this, how many fools tomorrow will ​remember
> being asked the question today? I maintain the answer is 2 fools not one.
> Do you disagree?
>

It's irrelevant. The question isn't about how many fools there are - the
answer to that is unavailable to the persons in the thought experiment. The
actual number of copies is irrelevant to the thought experiment, as long as
it's more than one.

The question for the moment, is, before you enter the duplicator, what do
you (the Helsinki you) expect to experience? Consider one's experience
before entering the duplicator, and the experience after. Follow the stream
of consciousness, as if you were the one entering the duplicator, what
happens on the other side? As you agreed earlier, it's an experience of a
single city.

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
I am less worried about conscious machines, but instead focus on intuitive 
machinery, that grabs science knowledge from wide apart fields and builds new 
inventions from these. Think more on the lines of, a rocket ship with a 
life-support interior that protects and feeds the travelers inside. Or, better 
yet, biological fuel cells on earth that power cars and trains and robots, 
improving the quality of life, for us, greatly. Also medical fixes too. 



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 26, 2017 10:45 am
Subject: Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")




On 26 Sep 2017, at 07:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


You folks  want Profundity-If this is fact, it is, Profundity itself. A 
Japanese team came up with a super-duper quantum computing architecture, that 
looks to be able to eat the Protein Folding Problem, with pepper and salt. I 
don't feel this news is too good to be true. Needs much work, development, 
bottleneck fixing, progging, but, am guessing that you wanted a Singularity? Ya 
got a Singularity.  
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/09/japanese-researchers-work-out-theoretical-universal-quantum-computer-that-could-scale-to-millions-of-qubits.html
 




That approach is very interesting. I have no clue if it is feasible in a near 
future. It looks more feasible than most models though.


Now, that machine will be able to do a million times more stupidities than the 
human. 


And plausibly new quantum one ...


The singularity might be the discovery of the universal (Turing) machine. I 
think. We don't realize because we have the nose on it. 


Of course, in a sense, the bacteria, and later the neurons, did that well 
before us-the-human, and indeed, that's why we could do it to.


Once there, the universal machine can only become more deluded, get trapped in 
the Samsara, confuse its higher self with the little ego, and mix brilliance 
with barbary, like with atomic bombs.


Now, I would certainly applaud if they succeed in solving, by simulation I 
guess, to predict the folding of the proteins, which is a very hard problem 
indeed, and a probably crucial one for the future of bio-computing. It will 
have medical applications, for the best, and the worst.


Bruno






 
 
-Original Message-
 From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
 To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Mon, Sep 25, 2017 3:37 pm
 Subject: Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")
 
 
 
 
 
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
 
 
 

 
 
 
​>> ​
 The only 
​ ​
 identity criteria 
​ ​
 I remember agreeing to is 
​ "​
 the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow 
​.​
 
 

 
  
 
​> ​
 You have agreed that the Moscow Man (like the Washington Man)  is an honorable 
Helsinki Man survivor.
 
 
 

 
 
 
​I have agreed that the ​
 Helsinki Man 
​ is a proper subset of the Moscow man but the two are NOT equivalent, if they 
were it would be stupid to give them different names. I also said the Helsinki 
man survives because the Moscow man remembers being the Helsinki man and 
remembering  is how I define "survival", but how you define survival I don't 
know.   ​
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​> ​
 Yes, the Helsinki man is in two places,
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
​Then what are we arguing ​about?
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​> ​
 but the point is that he does not feel that way.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
​Oh yes now I remember, we are arguing about the identity​
   
​of the mysterious Mr. He.​
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​> ​
 nobody can feel to be in two places at once with computationalism 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
​That is not a sacred axiom of computationalism! The Moscow man and the 
Washington man could be merged back together and the resulting 
Moscow/Washington man would have vivid memories of being in both cities at 
exactly the same time, as well as having memories of being just the Helsinki 
man. In fact you could feel to be in 2 cities at the same time even without a 
people duplicating machine, just feed in detailed sensory data from Moscow and 
Washington back to the fellow in Helsinki.
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
"I" is the usual indexical. You can duplicate it in the 3-1 picture, but not in 
the 1p view, viewed from that 1p view.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
​Good old "the"! Misusing personal pronouns ​is not the only way to sweep 
illogical thinking under the rug, forgetting that there is a difference between 
the English articles "the" and "a" also does a good job at muddying the waters. 
 
 

 
 
 
​ 
​>> ​
 All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back in Helsinki,
 

 
  
 
​> ​
 The prediction is asked to the Helsinki guy before the duplication. The copies 
are the Helsinki guy,
 
 
 

 
 
 
​Yes the ​
 copies are the Helsinki gu

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

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> ​>
>> ​>​
>> ​
>> nobody can feel to be in two places at once with computationalism
>>
> ​
> ​> ​
> That is not a sacred axiom of computationalism!
>
> ​> ​
> It is simple consequence.
>

​Show me how! Explain to me why computers can't do 2 things at the same
time. Then tell me
why even with todays technology by using telepresence you can feel like
you're in one place
even though you're brain is in another place far away.

​>> ​
>> The Moscow man and the Washington man could be merged back together and
>> the resulting
>> Moscow/Washington man would have vivid memories of being in both cities
>> at exactly the
>> ​\​
>> same time, as well as having memories of being just the Helsinki man.
>> ​
>>
>

> > ​
> In a metaphorical sense?
>

​No, in a literal sense.​



> ​> ​
> But strictly speaking, after fusing, the guy will remember having been in
> only one city
>

If after fusing the Moscow man and the Washington man back together
​and ​
the resulting being
remembers
​ ​
having been in only one city
​ don't you think it's a little odd that being is unable to
say what the name
of that one and only one city is?​
​ I think it's odd.​

without having been able to predict which one in
> ​ ​
> Helsinki before.
>

​So if you asked the newly refused Moscow/Washington man "What is the name
of that one and
only one city you ended up seeing after ​ Helsinki?", do you think he'd
give you that one and only
one name or do you think he's look at you like you were crazy for asking
such a thing?

> That's right, "he" still doesn't know and "he" will NEVER know because
> nobody will ever
> know what "he" means in the above.


> ​> ​
> Then computationalism is false.
>

​Bullshit.​



> ​> ​
> Of course the helsinki man will be able to answer and verify the
> prediction.
>


​T​
he
​Helsinki
 man
​?!! ​
T​
he
​Helsinki
 man
​ can't verify anything because after the duplication nobody
 is in Helsinki anymore. ​

>
​>>​
>> ​I still don't understand why you're more interested ​in expectations
>> than reality
>
>
> ​> ​
> Reality is the goal.
>

​Expectations are often proven to be wrong, reality never is.​

​

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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​> ​
> So the expectation of anyone who enters a duplicator would be


​The expectations of what will happen will change from person to person,
but the reality of what actually did happen will not.


> ​> t​
> o open their eyes to a single city.


​If he's a fool he might indeed expect that, but I don't much care what
fools think. But ask yourself this, how many fools tomorrow will ​remember
being asked the question today? I maintain the answer is 2 fools not one.
Do you disagree?

John K Clark





>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:04 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Terren Suydam 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> In this situation, does the copy that opens his eyes in Barcelona only
>>> see Barcelona?
>>>
>>
>> ​Obviously.​
>>
>>
>>
>>> ​> ​
>>> And the copy that opens his eyes in Paris only see Paris?
>>>
>>
>> ​Obviously.
>>
>
> So the expectation of anyone who enters a duplicator would be to open
> their eyes to a single city.
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

you must not neglect the question asked


​What question?  I saw words and question marks but I saw no question.​


​> ​
> which concerns the first person experience expected.


​Which THE the first person experience is the prediction suposed to be
about, John Clark's THE
first person experience in Helsinki John Clark's THE first person
experience in Moscow or
John Clark's THE first person experience in Washington? John Clark predicts
that Bruno's
answer will contain a gaggle of personal pronouns with no referent, talk
about THE 1p as if
there were only one, or do both.

​> ​
> I am asking just the H-man, about what he expects


​
For all I know
​ ​
the H-man
​ ​
expects
​ ​
Santa Claus's workshop, but I neither know nor care what the
H-man expects,I only care who will remember
​​
tomorrow being the H-man today, and two men
will not one.

Keep in mind that UDA is
> ​...
>

​babytalk. ​


​> ​
> You know you will push on a button,


​Yes, I know who "you" refers to up to this point, but after that the word
"you" must be abandoned.​


 open a door and see a city


​John Clark opens 2 doors and ​

​sees 2 cities.​

​> ​
> Don't patronize


No I think I’m going to continue to patronize as long as you continue to
assume the meaning
of personal pronouns is
​always​
 obvious even in a world that contains personal pronoun duplicating
machines as
​is done​
 in the following:

"*It is the specific city that I will feel be in that I cannot predict.*”

>
> ​> ​
> No, he should not expect to get tea he should expect the promise to be
> broken and it would be
> better if he expected to end up in
> ​ ​
> Santa Claus's workshop instead.Why should he expect that?
> Because he will happier if he does,Santa Claus's
> ​ ​
> workshop sound like more fun than drinking tea

Of course expectations need not turn out to be correct to bring happiness


​> ​
> Good joke.


I’m not joking.Santa Claus's workshop is as good a response as any to a
meaningless sequence of
words followed be a question mark
​.​

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")

2017-09-26 Thread Terren Suydam
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:04 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> In this situation, does the copy that opens his eyes in Barcelona only
>> see Barcelona?
>>
>
> ​Obviously.​
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> And the copy that opens his eyes in Paris only see Paris?
>>
>
> ​Obviously.
>

So the expectation of anyone who enters a duplicator would be to open their
eyes to a single city.

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​> ​
> In this situation, does the copy that opens his eyes in Barcelona only see
> Barcelona?
>

​Obviously.​



> ​> ​
> And the copy that opens his eyes in Paris only see Paris?
>

​Obviously. And equally obvious John Clark will end up seeing 2 cities. And
speaking of predictions, I predict that Terry Suydam will next write the
following sequence of words "So how many cities will you end up seeing?"
and will claim that it must be a question because there is a question mark
at the end of the word sequence.

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")

2017-09-26 Thread Terren Suydam
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:14 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> ​> ​
>> But before we continue, I need to be sure we agree that from your
>> first-person perspective, when it comes to making decisions based on some
>> future state, you only have the contents of your mind to work with. Your
>> mental model, your worldview, pick whatever language you like, it's what
>> gives you a sense of what to expect, and therefore the only basis one has
>> for placing bets. Do you disagree?
>>
>
> ​No, I don't disagree. A mind is the only source of ideas, even incorrect
> ideas, even gibberish ideas. ​
>
> ​
>

Going back to the previous example that involves teleporting from Helsinki
to Barcelona... imagine a time where this is a service that you pay for.
When you step into the teleporter in Helsinki, you have every expectation
of experiencing Barcelona. After all, you paid a lot of money to do so.
But, there's a glitch and a copy is also teleported to Paris.

In this situation, does the copy that opens his eyes in Barcelona only see
Barcelona?  And the copy that opens his eyes in Paris only see Paris?

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread David Nyman
On 25 September 2017 at 22:34, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Terren Suydam 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> Then we agree that expectations are important, since the wrong ones can
>>> kill us.
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> Forget important, expectations are not even meaningful in thought
>> experiments involving people duplicating machines if
>> ​ ​
>> it is not clearly stated what is being expected.
>>
>
> You're arguing against things I haven't said. To be frank, I tuned out of
> the John Clark/Bruno Marchal wars sometime last year... after a few dozen
> times around that carousel I wanted off. So don't assume I'm going to say
> something Bruno is saying. I do expect (ahem) to be able to clearly state
> was is being expected in the thought experiment, without requiring personal
> pronouns.
>
> But before we continue, I need to be sure we agree that from your
> first-person perspective, when it comes to making decisions based on some
> future state, you only have the contents of your mind to work with. Your
> mental model, your worldview, pick whatever language you like, it's what
> gives you a sense of what to expect, and therefore the only basis one has
> for placing bets. Do you disagree?
>

​First rule of Fight Club​: Don't expect to win in any continuation.
Second rule: Don't even think about expecting to win in any continuation.
Third rule: You will not win in any continuation.

Well, you know what result to 'expect' by now.

David



>
> Terren
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at  spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

​> ​
> You folks  want Profundity-If this is fact, it is, Profundity itself. A
> Japanese team came up with a super-duper quantum computing architecture,
> that looks to be able to eat the Protein Folding Problem, with pepper and
> salt. I don't feel this news is too good to be true. Needs much work,
> development, bottleneck fixing, progging, but, am guessing that you wanted
> a Singularity? Ya got a Singularity.
> *https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/09/japanese-researchers-work-out-theoretical-universal-quantum-computer-that-could-scale-to-millions-of-qubits.html
> *
>

​That's interesting but they can't scale it up to make a full scale machine
just yet because existing error correcting schemes can only do so much and
their error rate ​is still about 6 dB too high. The authors of the paper
admit this but say:

​"​
*However, the requirement for fault tolerance is likely to be satisfied in
the near future by further​ ​improvement of technology or error-correction
protocols*
​"

I hope they're right but getting those last few dB's is hard.

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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​> ​
> It is the specific city that I will feel be in that I cannot predict.
>

​Because when talking about the future AFTER going through a *"I" *duplicating
​

​machine the personal pronoun* "I​" *becomes ambiguous. Nobody can make the
prediction because nobody knows what is suposed to be predicted.

​> ​
> I can explain more if you tell me if you agree that P(tea) = 1.
>

​I've already answered that, no I don't agree. I have no reason to believe
you will keep your promise about the tea and I expect it is far more likely
I will see ​
Santa Claus's workshop
​ than any tea. However I still don't understand why you're more interested
in my expectations than the nature of reality.

 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")

2017-09-26 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Sep 2017, at 07:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

You folks  want Profundity-If this is fact, it is, Profundity  
itself. A Japanese team came up with a super-duper quantum computing  
architecture, that looks to be able to eat the Protein Folding  
Problem, with pepper and salt. I don't feel this news is too good to  
be true. Needs much work, development, bottleneck fixing, progging,  
but, am guessing that you wanted a Singularity? Ya got a Singularity.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/09/japanese-researchers-work-out-theoretical-universal-quantum-computer-that-could-scale-to-millions-of-qubits.html



That approach is very interesting. I have no clue if it is feasible in  
a near future. It looks more feasible than most models though.


Now, that machine will be able to do a million times more stupidities  
than the human.


And plausibly new quantum one ...

The singularity might be the discovery of the universal (Turing)  
machine. I think. We don't realize because we have the nose on it.


Of course, in a sense, the bacteria, and later the neurons, did that  
well before us-the-human, and indeed, that's why we could do it to.


Once there, the universal machine can only become more deluded, get  
trapped in the Samsara, confuse its higher self with the little ego,  
and mix brilliance with barbary, like with atomic bombs.


Now, I would certainly applaud if they succeed in solving, by  
simulation I guess, to predict the folding of the proteins, which is a  
very hard problem indeed, and a probably crucial one for the future of  
bio-computing. It will have medical applications, for the best, and  
the worst.


Bruno





-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 25, 2017 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting  
point")


On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>  
wrote:


​>> ​ The only ​ ​ identity criteria ​ ​ I remember  
agreeing to is ​ "​ the Moscow man" means the man who saw  
Moscow ​.​


​> ​ You have agreed that the Moscow Man (like the Washington  
Man)  is an honorable Helsinki Man survivor.


​I have agreed that the ​ Helsinki Man ​ is a proper subset of  
the Moscow man but the two are NOT equivalent, if they were it would  
be stupid to give them different names. I also said the Helsinki man  
survives because the Moscow man remembers being the Helsinki man and  
remembering  is how I define "survival", but how you define survival  
I don't know.   ​


​> ​ Yes, the Helsinki man is in two places,

​Then what are we arguing ​about?

​> ​ but the point is that he does not feel that way.

​Oh yes now I remember, we are arguing about the identity​   ​ 
of the mysterious Mr. He.​


​> ​ nobody can feel to be in two places at once with  
computationalism


​That is not a sacred axiom of computationalism! The Moscow man and  
the Washington man could be merged back together and the resulting  
Moscow/Washington man would have vivid memories of being in both  
cities at exactly the same time, as well as having memories of being  
just the Helsinki man. In fact you could feel to be in 2 cities at  
the same time even without a people duplicating machine, just feed  
in detailed sensory data from Moscow and Washington back to the  
fellow in Helsinki.


"I" is the usual indexical. You can duplicate it in the 3-1 picture,  
but not in the 1p view, viewed from that 1p view.


​Good old "the"! Misusing personal pronouns ​is not the only way  
to sweep illogical thinking under the rug, forgetting that there is  
a difference between the English articles "the" and "a" also does a  
good job at muddying the waters.


​ ​>> ​ All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday  
back in Helsinki,


​> ​ The prediction is asked to the Helsinki guy before the  
duplication. The copies are the Helsinki guy,


​Yes the ​ copies are the Helsinki guy ​ because they are​  
everything the Helsinki man was, but the Helsinki guy was never  
everything the copies are, one is a proper subset of the other.  Not  
all connections between things have the Equivalence Relation​ ​,  
equality does but "is grater than"​ does not, 4 is grater than 3  
but 3 is not grater than 4. Personal identity also does not have  
the  Equivalence ​Relation ​, the Moscow man is the Helsinki man  
but the Helsinki man is not the Moscow man.


  ​>> ​ you ask "Which one will become the Moscow man?" and the  
answer of course is "the one the sees Moscow".


​> ​ That does not help the Helsinki man,

Well I could add that the one the sees Moscow ​ will turn out  
to be the Moscow man. That's all the help I can give the Helsinki  
man because I don't understand what he is asking.


​> ​ given that in hels

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

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:


​> ​
> Asking about your expectations is an attempt to show what your implicit
> beliefs about your future are.
>

OK, If you say "What one and only one city do you expect to
​see​
​
after you walk into the
​ ​
that "you" duplicating machine?" I would remain silent because it is not my
habit to respond to any old string of words, not even if the string of
words are placed in a
​ ​
grammatically correct order, not even if there is a question mark at the
end of
​that​
​
string. I can't give a answer if I don't know the question and I don't.

​> ​
> if you are duplicated in Washington and Moscow would you like your assets
> to be distributed 50/50 to the copies
>

​That would depend on my personal
idiosyncrasies
​ and also​
 on how rich I was, if I was only living at the subsistence level I'd want
all my assets to go to only one of the copies, it doesn't matter which one,
because that way at least one of them would survive; if I were a
billionaire I might prefer a different arrangement, and you might like
something else entirely. Who cares? There is no disputing matters of taste.
I thought we were interested in grand philosophical ideas and the nature of
reality not the trivial likes and dislikes of individuals.


​ 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")

2017-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​
>> ​>> ​
>> Forget important, expectations are not even meaningful in thought
>> experiments involving people duplicating machines if
>> ​ ​
>> it is not clearly stated what is being expected.
>>
>
> ​> ​
> You're arguing against things I haven't said.
>

​I never claimed you did say it.​ Every comment I make in a post is not
necessarily a rebuttal to something somebody else said.


> ​> ​
> I do expect (ahem) to be able to clearly state was is being expected in
> the thought experiment, without requiring personal pronouns.
>

​I hope ​Terren Suydam is careful with personal pronouns too,  if everybody
was this thread would have ended years ago.

​> ​
> But before we continue, I need to be sure we agree that from your
> first-person perspective, when it comes to making decisions based on some
> future state, you only have the contents of your mind to work with. Your
> mental model, your worldview, pick whatever language you like, it's what
> gives you a sense of what to expect, and therefore the only basis one has
> for placing bets. Do you disagree?
>

​No, I don't disagree. A mind is the only source of ideas, even incorrect
ideas, even gibberish ideas. ​

​

 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")

2017-09-26 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 25 Sep 2017, at 21:37, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​>> ​The only​ ​identity criteria​ ​I remember agreeing  
to is​ "​the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow​.​


​> ​You have agreed that the Moscow Man (like the Washington  
Man)  is an honorable Helsinki Man survivor.


​I have agreed that the ​Helsinki Man​ is a proper subset of  
the Moscow man but the two are NOT equivalent, if they were it would  
be stupid to give them different names. I also said the Helsinki man  
survives because the Moscow man remembers being the Helsinki man and  
remembering  is how I define "survival", but how you define survival  
I don't know.   ​


​> ​Yes, the Helsinki man is in two places,

​Then what are we arguing ​about?


On the expectation to live the experience "being in M (resp W)" after  
pushing the button.







​> ​but the point is that he does not feel that way.

​Oh yes now I remember, we are arguing about the identity​ ​of  
the mysterious Mr. He.​


Never. On the identity question you have agreed with all the points,  
since long.






​> ​nobody can feel to be in two places at once with  
computationalism


​That is not a sacred axiom of computationalism!


It is simple consequence.




The Moscow man and the Washington man could be merged back together  
and the resulting Moscow/Washington man would have vivid memories of  
being in both cities at exactly the same time, as well as having  
memories of being just the Helsinki man.



In a metaphorical sense? But strictly speaking, after fusing, the guy  
will remember having been in only one city without having been able to  
predict which one in Helsinki before. He will remember this for the  
two cities, but that will not give him an algorith to make a future  
similar prediction, obviously, so without changing the protocol, the  
indeterminacy remains, and is doubly confirmed by the fusion.






In fact you could feel to be in 2 cities at the same time even  
without a people duplicating machine, just feed in detailed sensory  
data from Moscow and Washington back to the fellow in Helsinki.


"I" is the usual indexical. You can duplicate it in the 3-1 picture,  
but not in the 1p view, viewed from that 1p view.


​Good old "the"! Misusing personal pronouns ​is not the only way  
to sweep illogical thinking under the rug, forgetting that there is  
a difference between the English articles "the" and "a" also does a  
good job at muddying the waters.


Nope. The 1P/3P distinction brings complete clarity on what the "the"  
mean. The confusion arise only from your systematic dismiss of that  
difference.






​​>> ​All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back  
in Helsinki,


​> ​The prediction is asked to the Helsinki guy before the  
duplication. The copies are the Helsinki guy,


​Yes the ​copies are the Helsinki guy​ because they are​  
everything the Helsinki man was, but the Helsinki guy was never  
everything the copies are, one is a proper subset of the other. Not  
all connections between things have the Equivalence Relation​​,  
equality does but "is grater than"​ does not, 4 is grater than 3  
but 3 is not grater than 4. Personal identity also does not have the  
Equivalence ​Relation​, the Moscow man is the Helsinki man but  
the Helsinki man is not the Moscow man.


 ​>> ​you ask "Which one will become the Moscow man?" and the  
answer of course is "the one the sees Moscow".


​> ​That does not help the Helsinki man,

Well I could add that the one the sees Moscow​ will turn out to  
be the Moscow man. That's all the help I can give the Helsinki man  
because I don't understand what he is asking.


​> ​given that in helsinki he still doesn't know if he will feel  
to be being the M-man or not.


​That's right, "he" still doesn't know and "he" will NEVER know  
because nobody will ever know what "he" means in the above.​


Then computationalism is false. Of course the helsinki man will be  
able to answer and verify the prediction. Indeed, he will verify in  
both place that P(W v M) = 1, and all the others were not equal to 1.







> ​>​Yes that's a trivial answer but then it was a trivial  
question, and at least it's true just like all tautologies.


​> ​But can be false when used to predict "moscow" in helsinki.

​So the Moscow man didn't see Moscow?


The W-man did not see Moscow. And computationalism gives similar  
credits to both copies.





! Well then who did see Moscow, the Washington man??​

​> ​Answer this before we proceed, please. Should the H-man  
expect or not to drink tea when tea is promised to be given to both  
copies?


​I still don't understand why you're more interested ​in  
expectations than reality


Reality is the goal. Of course, stopping in the middle of the  
reasoning cannot help you on this.





but if you insist in a answer I will give you one.  ​N​o, he  
should not expect to get tea he should expect the 

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

2017-09-26 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 25 Sep 2017, at 19:51, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Terren Suydam  wrote:


​> ​Then we agree that expectations are important, since the  
wrong ones can kill us.


​Forget important, expectations are not even meaningful in thought  
experiments involving people duplicating machines if​ ​it is not  
clearly stated what is being expected. And if there is no way to  
tell if the prediction made​ ​before the duplication turned out  
to be correct or not even AFTER the duplication is completed because  
of the frequent use of personal pronouns in a world that contains  
personal pronoun duplicating machines​ ​then the entire exercise  
is useless.


Bruno says there is a thing that can't be predicted because of  
something he calls first person indeterminacy, but he is unable to  
say exactly what it is that can't be predicted,




Of course I can. It is the specific city that I will feel be in that I  
cannot predict. My next first person experience after pushing the  
button.

But I can predict with certainty that it will belong to the set {W, M}.

I can explain more if you tell me if you agree that P(tea) = 1.

Bruno


but maybe you can do what Bruno can't. Nobody can give a answer if  
there is no question​ so ​precisely ​what ​is it that​ ​ 
Terren Suydam​ ​challenges John Clark to predict and claims can't  
be done? ​But please don't do what Bruno does ​and start talking  
about "THE 1p" without specifying which "THE 1p" is being referred  
to because remember, there are "THE 1p" duplicating machines on  
every street corner in this thought experiment.


​ 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.


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.


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

2017-09-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 at 7:51 pm, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> Then we agree that expectations are important, since the wrong ones can
>> kill us.
>>
>
> ​
> Forget important, expectations are not even meaningful in thought
> experiments involving people duplicating machines if
> ​ ​
> it is not clearly stated what is being expected. And if there is no way to
> tell if the prediction made
> ​ ​
> before the duplication turned out to be correct or not even AFTER the
> duplication is completed because of the frequent use of personal pronouns
> in a world that contains personal pronoun duplicating machines
> ​ ​
> then the entire exercise is useless.
>

Asking about your expectations is an attempt to show what your implicit
beliefs about your future are. You explicitly state that you have no
beliefs about your future in duplication experiments, because, you claim,
the question is meaningless. But what implications does this have have for
your decisions when faced with one of these experiments? For example, if
you are duplicated in Washington and Moscow would you like your assets to
be distributed 50/50 to the copies, or would you prefer that you be
declared legally dead and your assets distributed assets distributed to
your heirs as set out in your will?
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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")

2017-09-25 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
You folks  want Profundity-If this is fact, it is, Profundity itself. A 
Japanese team came up with a super-duper quantum computing architecture, that 
looks to be able to eat the Protein Folding Problem, with pepper and salt. I 
don't feel this news is too good to be true. Needs much work, development, 
bottleneck fixing, progging, but, am guessing that you wanted a Singularity? Ya 
got a Singularity. 
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/09/japanese-researchers-work-out-theoretical-universal-quantum-computer-that-could-scale-to-millions-of-qubits.html



-Original Message-
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 25, 2017 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")



On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:





​>> ​
The only
​ ​
identity criteria
​ ​
I remember agreeing to is
​ "​
the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow
​.​




​> ​
You have agreed that the Moscow Man (like the Washington Man)  is an honorable 
Helsinki Man survivor.




​I have agreed that the ​
Helsinki Man
​ is a proper subset of the Moscow man but the two are NOT equivalent, if they 
were it would be stupid to give them different names. I also said the Helsinki 
man survives because the Moscow man remembers being the Helsinki man and 
remembering  is how I define "survival", but how you define survival I don't 
know.   ​

 


​> ​
Yes, the Helsinki man is in two places,





​Then what are we arguing ​about?
 
 


 
​> ​
but the point is that he does not feel that way.





​Oh yes now I remember, we are arguing about the identity​
 
​of the mysterious Mr. He.​

 


​> ​
nobody can feel to be in two places at once with computationalism 





​That is not a sacred axiom of computationalism! The Moscow man and the 
Washington man could be merged back together and the resulting 
Moscow/Washington man would have vivid memories of being in both cities at 
exactly the same time, as well as having memories of being just the Helsinki 
man. In fact you could feel to be in 2 cities at the same time even without a 
people duplicating machine, just feed in detailed sensory data from Moscow and 
Washington back to the fellow in Helsinki.





"I" is the usual indexical. You can duplicate it in the 3-1 picture, but not in 
the 1p view, viewed from that 1p view.





​Good old "the"! Misusing personal pronouns ​is not the only way to sweep 
illogical thinking under the rug, forgetting that there is a difference between 
the English articles "the" and "a" also does a good job at muddying the waters. 




​
​>> ​
All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back in Helsinki,



​> ​
The prediction is asked to the Helsinki guy before the duplication. The copies 
are the Helsinki guy,




​Yes the ​
copies are the Helsinki guy
​ because they are​ everything the Helsinki man was, but the Helsinki guy was 
never everything the copies are, one is a proper subset of the other. 
Not all connections between things have the 
Equivalence Relation​
​, equality does but "is grater than"​ does not, 4 is grater than 3 but 3 is 
not grater than 4. Personal identity also does not have the 
Equivalence 
​Relation
​, the Moscow man is the Helsinki man but the Helsinki man is not the Moscow 
man.






 
​>> ​
you ask "Which one will become the Moscow man?" and the answer of course is 
"the one the sees Moscow". 





​> ​
That does not help the Helsinki man,



Well I could add that the one the sees Moscow
​ will turn out to be the Moscow man. That's all the help I can give the 
Helsinki man because I don't understand what he is asking.
 


​> ​
given that in helsinki he still doesn't know if he will feel to be being the 
M-man or not.





​That's right, "he" still doesn't know and "he" will NEVER know because nobody 
will ever know what "he" means in the above.​

 



> 
​>​
Yes that's a trivial answer but then it was a trivial question, and at least 
it's true just like all tautologies.



 


​> ​
But can be false when used to predict "moscow" in helsinki.





​So the Moscow man didn't see Moscow?! Well then who did see Moscow, the 
Washington man??
​
 



​> ​
Answer this before we proceed, please. Should the H-man expect or not to drink 
tea when tea is promised to be given to both copies?



​I still don't understand why you're more interested ​in expectations than 
reality but if you insist in a answer I will give you one. 
 
​N​
o, he should not expect to get tea he should expect the promise to be broken 
and it would be better if he expected to end up in ​
Santa Claus's workshop
​ instead. Why should h

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

2017-09-25 Thread Terren Suydam
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> Then we agree that expectations are important, since the wrong ones can
>> kill us.
>>
>
> ​
> Forget important, expectations are not even meaningful in thought
> experiments involving people duplicating machines if
> ​ ​
> it is not clearly stated what is being expected.
>

You're arguing against things I haven't said. To be frank, I tuned out of
the John Clark/Bruno Marchal wars sometime last year... after a few dozen
times around that carousel I wanted off. So don't assume I'm going to say
something Bruno is saying. I do expect (ahem) to be able to clearly state
was is being expected in the thought experiment, without requiring personal
pronouns.

But before we continue, I need to be sure we agree that from your
first-person perspective, when it comes to making decisions based on some
future state, you only have the contents of your mind to work with. Your
mental model, your worldview, pick whatever language you like, it's what
gives you a sense of what to expect, and therefore the only basis one has
for placing bets. Do you disagree?

Terren

-- 
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")

2017-09-25 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> The only
>> ​ ​
>> identity criteria
>> ​ ​
>> I remember agreeing to is
>> ​ "​
>> the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow
>> ​.​
>>
>
> ​> ​
> You have agreed that the Moscow Man (like the Washington Man)  is an
> honorable Helsinki Man survivor.
>

​I have agreed that the ​
Helsinki Man
​ is a proper subset of the Moscow man but the two are NOT equivalent, if
they were it would be stupid to give them different names. I also said the
Helsinki man survives because the Moscow man remembers being the Helsinki
man and remembering  is how I define "survival", but how you define
survival I don't know.   ​


> ​> ​
> Yes, the Helsinki man is in two places,
>

​Then what are we arguing ​about?



> ​> ​
> but the point is that he does not feel that way.
>

​Oh yes now I remember, we are arguing about the identity​

​of the mysterious Mr. He.​


> ​> ​
> nobody can feel to be in two places at once with computationalism
>

​That is not a sacred axiom of computationalism! The Moscow man and the
Washington man could be merged back together and the resulting
Moscow/Washington man would have vivid memories of being in both cities at
exactly the same time, as well as having memories of being just the
Helsinki man. In fact you could feel to be in 2 cities at the same time
even without a people duplicating machine, just feed in detailed sensory
data from Moscow and Washington back to the fellow in Helsinki.

"I" is the usual indexical. You can duplicate it in the 3-1 picture, but
> not in the 1p view, viewed from that 1p view.
>

​Good old "the"! Misusing personal pronouns ​is not the only way to sweep
illogical thinking under the rug, forgetting that there is a difference
between the English articles "the" and "a" also does a good job at muddying
the waters.

​
>> ​>> ​
>> All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back in Helsinki,
>
>
> ​> ​
> The prediction is asked to the Helsinki guy before the duplication. The
> copies are the Helsinki guy,
>

​Yes the ​
copies are the Helsinki guy
​ because they are​ everything the Helsinki man was, but the Helsinki guy
was never everything the copies are, one is a proper subset of the other.
Not all connections between things have the
Equivalence Relation​
​, equality does but "is grater than"​ does not, 4 is grater than 3 but 3
is not grater than 4. Personal identity also does not have the
Equivalence
​Relation
​, the Moscow man is the Helsinki man but the Helsinki man is not the
Moscow man.


>> ​>> ​
>> you ask "Which one will become the Moscow man?" and the answer of course
>> is "the one the sees Moscow".
>
>
> ​> ​
> That does not help the Helsinki man,
>

Well I could add that the one the sees Moscow
​ will turn out to be the Moscow man. That's all the help I can give
the Helsinki man because I don't understand what he is asking.


> ​> ​
> given that in helsinki he still doesn't know if he will feel to be being
> the M-man or not.
>

​That's right, "he" still doesn't know and "he" will NEVER know because
nobody will ever know what "he" means in the above.​


> >
>> ​>​
>> Yes that's a trivial answer but then it was a trivial question, and at
>> least it's true just like all tautologies.
>
>

​> ​
> But can be false when used to predict "moscow" in helsinki.
>

​So the Moscow man didn't see Moscow?! Well then who did see Moscow, the
Washington man??
​


​> ​
> Answer this before we proceed, please. Should the H-man expect or not to
> drink tea when tea is promised to be given to both copies?


​I still don't understand why you're more interested ​in expectations than
reality but if you insist in a answer I will give you one.

​N​
o, he should not expect to get tea he should expect the promise to be
broken and it would be better if he expected to end up in ​
Santa Claus's workshop
​ instead. Why should he expect that? Because he will happier if he does,
Santa Claus's workshop
​ sounds like more fun than drinking tea. Of course expectations need not
turn out to be correct to bring happiness

 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")

2017-09-25 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​> ​
> Then we agree that expectations are important, since the wrong ones can
> kill us.
>

​
Forget important, expectations are not even meaningful in thought
experiments involving people duplicating machines if
​ ​
it is not clearly stated what is being expected. And if there is no way to
tell if the prediction made
​ ​
before the duplication turned out to be correct or not even AFTER the
duplication is completed because of the frequent use of personal pronouns
in a world that contains personal pronoun duplicating machines
​ ​
then the entire exercise is useless.

Bruno says there is a thing that can't be predicted because of something he
calls first person indeterminacy, but he is unable to say exactly what it
is that can't be predicted, but maybe you can do what Bruno can't. Nobody
can give a answer if there is no question
​ so ​
precisely
​what ​
is it that
​ ​
Terren Suydam
​ ​
challenges John Clark to predict and claims can't be done?
​But please don't do what Bruno does ​and start talking about "*THE* 1p"
without specifying which "*THE *1p" is being referred to because remember,
there are "*THE* 1p" duplicating machines on every street corner in this
thought experiment.

​ 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")

2017-09-25 Thread Terren Suydam
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:54 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>>> ​My expectation is after I enter the duplicator
>>> ​is ​
>>> I will be in Santa Claus's workshop
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> On what basis would you expect that?
>>
>
> Freud
> ​ ​
> would say it's because I had bad potty training when I was a
> ​n​
> infant
> ​, but ​
> who know
> s and​
> who
> ​cares what
> caused
> me to expect that​
> ;
> ​ whatever the cause ​
> the fact remains I
> ​do ​
> expect to be in
> ​​
> Santa Claus's workshop
> ​, I may be wrong but that's what I expect. But How anybody's expectations
> have any relevance to the computational theory of mind is a utter mystery
> to me.
>
> ​>>​
>> Even if you ask "what one and only one city will I be in?", your answer
>> is a reflection of what you *expect* to happen.
>>
>
> ​Who cares what I expect!!! What anybody expects to happen is irrelevant,
> what does happen is not.
>
> ​> ​
>>  Almost every choice we make can be traced to an expectation of one kind
>> or another. We live and die by expectations.
>>
>
> ​And very ofter we make bad choices because our expectations turn out to
> be dead wrong.​
>
>

Then we agree that expectations are important, since the wrong ones can
kill us. Even more so, because when it comes to making decisions about the
future, expectations are *all we have*. So for any theory of mind,
computational or otherwise, understanding how we come to expect or predict
what the world is going to do, is clearly of great importance.

Terren

-- 
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")

2017-09-25 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 24 Sep 2017, at 20:02, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​>> ​We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw  
Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw  ​Moscow.


​> ​That contradicts the identity criteria on which we have  
agreed.


​What​ ​agreed​ ​on​ ​identity criteria​ ​does that  
violate? The only​ ​identity criteria​ ​I remember agreeing  
to is​ "​the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow​.​


You have agreed that the Moscow Man (like the Washington Man)  is an  
honorable Helsinki Man survivor. The Moscow man is the Helsinki man,  
like the Washington Man is the Helsinki Man. Yes, the Helsinki man is  
in two places, but the point is that he does not feel that way. In  
both places, he feels like being in only once city, as nobody can feel  
to be in two places at once with computationalism and that protocol.







​> ​The answer is simply: I expect​ [...]

​Simple indeed if one refuses to consider just what "I" means and  
what the consequences of​ ​stepping into a "I" ​duplicating  
machine would be, ​but not simple in a good way.


"I" is the usual indexical. You can duplicate it in the 3-1 picture,  
but not in the 1p view, viewed from that 1p view.






​> ​to find myself either in M or in W.

​And it is so much simpler not to think about just what "myself"  
means with regards to the future. Not thinking is easier than  
thinking.



Yes, it is simpler to not answer the question asked, if the goal is to  
not understand the conclusion of the reasoning.






​>> ​and which THE first person experience are you talking about?

​> ​All the unicity experience of all copies.

​If its all of them why do you express surprise and claim that all  
sorts of deep philosophical consequences can be drawn from the fact  
that one and only one answer is insufficient to describe the fate of  
several different things.  ​How could it be otherwise?


​> ​I remind you the criteria: all copies must confirms the  
prediction rule in the finite duplication,


​All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back in  
Helsinki,


The prediction is asked to the Helsinki guy before the duplication.  
The copies are the Helsinki guy, so they were asked too, as confirmed  
in all the diaries and personal memories. When the M-man open his  
diary in Moscow, he saw and remember his prediction written in the  
diary.





only Bruno Marchal was asked the question ​yesterday back in  
Helsinki; and we know today that Bruno Marchal ended up seeing both  
cities.


... only in the 3-1p view. Nobody ends up seeing two cities from the  
1p view.





Yes yes I know what you will say "you confuse the 1p and the 3p" but  
you are the one who is confused, it is you who hasn't thought deeply  
about what a people duplicating machine really means. If the body of  
Bruno Marchal is duplicated there will still be only one conscious  
entity if the two of them are in identical environments, it is only  
when the environments differs, such as being in different cities,  
that the two start to form different memories and become different  
conscious beings. But you ask "Which one will become the Moscow  
man?" and the answer of course is "the one the sees Moscow".


That does not help the Helsinki man, given that in helsinki he still  
doesn't know if he will feel to be being the M-man or not.





Yes that's a trivial answer but then it was a trivial question, and  
at least it's true just like all tautologies.


But can be false when used to predict "moscow" in helsinki.





​> ​"THE" is used, because all those experience are incompatible  
from the first pov.


​Which THE ​first pov is "THE" incompatible with?



Both are incompatible with the view of their corresponding doppleganger.






​>> ​THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE  
first person experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow?


​> ​Yes, that one. That has been said since the start.

​That one? Which one?​ You quoted two.


Because both  lives the unique experience of being in a unique city.

Each time you ask "which one lives the experience of seeing *the*  
city", the answer is always the same: both, but only one from their  
first person point of view. Indeed, that is the reason why in Helsinki  
only "W v M" is correct.








Which  first person experience​ Is Mr. You, which ONE is different  
from all the others and uniquely ​deserves the noble title of "THE"?


​> ​All of them deserves the title of "THE"

​And that is why your notation has the precision of a dogs  
breakfast. ​


Only because you subtract the key ingredient: the distinction between  
1p and 3p.




​>> ​We had agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw  
Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw Moscow so obviously yesterday the  
Moscow man DID NOT EXIST.


​> ​That contradicts the identity criterion.

​The identity criterion​, what a joke!  If  "The Moscow man"​  
no longer means the man who saw 

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

2017-09-24 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​>> ​
>> We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but
>> yesterday nobody saw  ​Moscow.
>
>
> ​> ​
> That contradicts the identity criteria on which we have agreed.
>

​
What
​ ​
agreed
​ ​
on
​ ​
identity criteria
​ ​
does that violate? The only
​ ​
identity criteria
​ ​
I remember agreeing to is
​ "​
the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow
​.​

​> ​
> The answer is simply: I expect
> ​ [...]
>

​Simple indeed if one refuses to consider just what "*I*" means and what
the consequences of
​ ​
stepping into a "*I*"

​duplicating machine would be, ​but not simple in a good way.


> ​> ​
> to find myself either in M or in W.
>

​And it is so much simpler not to think about just what "myself" means with
regards to the future. Not thinking is easier than thinking.

​>> ​
>> and which *THE* first person experience are you talking about?
>
>
> ​> ​
> All the unicity experience of all copies.
>

​If its all of them why do you express surprise and claim that all sorts of
deep philosophical consequences can be drawn from the fact that one and
only one answer is insufficient to describe the fate of several different
things.  ​
H
ow could it be otherwise?


> ​> ​
> I remind you the criteria: all copies must confirms the prediction rule in
> the finite duplication,
>

​All the copies were NOT asked the question yesterday back in Helsinki,
only Bruno Marchal was asked the question ​yesterday back in Helsinki; and
we know today that Bruno Marchal ended up seeing both cities. Yes yes I
know what you will say "you confuse the 1p and the 3p" but you are the one
who is confused, it is you who hasn't thought deeply about what a people
duplicating machine really means. If the body of Bruno Marchal is
duplicated there will still be only one conscious entity if the two of them
are in identical environments, it is only when the environments differs,
such as being in different cities, that the two start to form different
memories and become different conscious beings. But you ask "Which one will
become the Moscow man?" and the answer of course is "the one the sees
Moscow". Yes that's a trivial answer but then it was a trivial question,
and at least it's true just like all tautologies.

​> ​
> "THE" is used, because all those experience are incompatible from the
> first pov.
>

​Which *THE* ​first pov is "*THE*" incompatible with?

​>> ​
>> THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE first person
>> experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow?
>
>
> ​> ​
> Yes, that one. That has been said since the start.
>

​That one? Which one?​ You quoted two.


> Which  first person experience
>> ​ Is Mr. You, which ONE is different from all the others and uniquely
>> ​deserves the noble title of "*THE*"?
>>
>
> ​> ​
> All of them deserves the title of "THE"
>

​And that is why your notation has the precision of a dogs breakfast. ​


> ​>> ​
>> We had agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but
>> yesterday nobody saw Moscow so obviously yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT
>> EXIST.
>
>
> ​> ​
> That contradicts the identity criterion.
>

​The
 identity criterion
​, what a joke!  If  "The Moscow man"​ no longer means the man who saw
Moscow then what does it mean? I don't know why I bother to ask you, on
Monday Wednesday and Friday you say it means one thing, on Tuesday Thursday
and Saturday you say it means another thing, and on Sunday you're not quite
sure.

>
​>> ​
>> But now you say "the Moscow man" did exist yesterday, so I have no idea
>> what you now mean by  ​"the Moscow man" and you have no idea either.
>
>
> ​> ​
> That is ridiculous. As I said, the M-man is the H-man, when he is in M.
>

​If there is no difference between the Moscow man and the ​

​Helsinki man then why did you give them different names? If there is a
difference but that difference is NOT that the Moscow man has seen Moscow
and Helsinki but the Helsinki man has only seen Helsinki then what in the
world is that difference? You've got to get your notation straight and make
it precise!  ​


> ​> ​
> Please answer P(tea).
>

​I don't like pee tea.

​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> ​At that moment, you can consider them as fused. The H-man is both of
>>> them,
>>
>> ​
>> ​>> ​
>> Both? If there are two there must be a difference between the H-man and
>> the M-man,
>
>
> ​> ​
> Not when seen as fused.
>

​If they are identical then what would be the difference between saying ​

​"there are two of them that are fused but both are identical​" to just
saying "there is only one and nothing is fused"? I can't see how there
would be any difference, not from the 3p view *and not from the 1p view
either!* So I ask yet again, now that the Moscow man no longer means the
man who saw Moscow what does it mean? And is there a Tokyo man fused in
there too? How about a
Chicago
​ man?​


> ​>> ​
>> ​He expects ​Santa Claus's workshop
>> ​! ​
>>
>> I don't give a damn what the

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

2017-09-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:37, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
​>​>>​​Yesterday the Moscow man we can see today, was the  
Helsinki man.


​>> ​​No. We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who  
saw Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw  ​Moscow.


​> ​We agreed that the Moscow-man is the Helsinki man,

​We agreed​ that today the ​ Moscow​ ​man is the Helsinki  
man​ of yesterday​​ BUT the Helsinki man​ of yesterday​​  
is NOT the Moscow​ ​man​ of today because yesterday ​the ​ 
Moscow​ ​man​ DID NOT EXIST.



That contradicts the identity criteria on which we have agreed.



You confuse the past with the future and the fact that the two can  
not be treated the same way.​


Nope.





​> ​you must not neglect the question asked

​I have no choice, I must ​neglect the question asked​ because  
nobody knows what that ​question is, least of all you.


The question is that, given you believe that the H-guy survive in both  
place, what do you expect, before pushing on the button,  to live as  
experience when pushing the button.


The answer is simply: I expect to find myself either in M or in W.






​> ​which concerns the first person experience expected.

​I care about the truth not expectations,


Then you don't care about the reasoning, and this shows you don't even  
try to get the point, and we are wasting our time.









and which THE first person experience are you talking about?



All the unicity experience of all copies. I remind you the criteria:  
all copies must confirms the prediction rule in the finite  
duplication, and almost all in the infinite case.


"THE" is used, because all those experience are incompatible from the  
first pov.




THE first person experience of the Helsinki man today? THE first  
person experience of the Helsinki man tomorrow?


Yes, that one. That has been said since the start.



THE first person experience of the  Moscow man today? THE first  
person experience of the  Moscow man yesterday? THE first person  
experience of the Washington man today? THE first person experience  
of the Washington man yesterday? Or the first person experiences  
today of the people who remember being in Helsinki yesterday. I need  
precision, sloppy language just won't do.


​> ​You will become two is only the third person description.

Which  first person experience​ Is Mr. You, which ONE is different  
from all the others and uniquely ​deserves the noble title of "THE"?


All of them deserves the title of "THE", giving that all of them feel  
theior corresponding city as unique. Which should be clear if you  
agreed with P(tea) = 1. But you remain mysteriously mute on this. Go  
figure why.






​>>​>>​ ​but of course he couldn't because yesterday the  
Moscow man DID NOT EXIST.


​>​>> ​ ​That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was  
in Helsinki,


​​>> ​Now you're changing the meaning of "the Moscow man"  
again,



​> ​Not at all. Come on, we have agreed that,

​We did but then unannounced you changed what the phrase meant in  
the middle of your post.


Absolutely not.




We had agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow,  
but yesterday nobody saw Moscow so obviously yesterday the Moscow  
man DID NOT EXIST.


That contradicts the identity criterion. The M-man is the H-man.



But now you say "the Moscow man" did exist yesterday, so I have no  
idea what you now mean by  ​"the Moscow man" and you have no idea  
either.


That is ridiculous. As I said, the M-man is the H-man, when he is in M.





Once again you're trying to push on a string because once again you  
don't understand that there is a difference between the past and the  
future.


I don't see that. Please answer P(tea).





 we have agreed that, roughly speaking:
W-man = H-man
M-man = H-man

​That is very misleading, the H-man existed in the past but both  
the W-man and the M-man will exist in the future. It would be more  
accurate to say one is the proper subset of the other:


W-man ​>​ H-man
M-man ​>​ H-man

​You are the Bruno Marchal of one year ago but he is not you; you  
are everything ​he was but you are more than him because you have  
had experiences in the last year that year ago Bruno knows nothing  
about.


W-man ≠ M-man

​Of that I certainly agree,​

​>> ​when you ask the question "What city do you expect to see?"  
who are you asking,  the Moscow man or the Washington man?


​> ​At that moment, you can consider them as fused. The H-man is  
both of them,


​Both? If there are two there must be a difference between the H- 
man and the M-man,


Not when seen as fused.



but at that stage nobody has seen Moscow or Washington, so what is  
that difference between the H-man the M-man and the W-man? If there  
is no difference it will only cause confusion to give them different  
names. And what in the world does "the M man" even mean if it  
doesn't mean the man who sees Moscow?


​> ​I am asking just the 

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

2017-09-22 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> ​Yesterday the Moscow man we can see today, was the Helsinki man.
>>
>>
>> ​>> ​
>> ​No. We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but
>> yesterday nobody saw  ​Moscow.
>
> ​> ​
> We agreed that the Moscow-man is the Helsinki man,
>

​
We agreed
​ that today the ​
 Moscow
​ ​
man is the Helsinki man
​ of yesterday​
​ BUT
the Helsinki man
​ of yesterday​
​ is NOT the
Moscow
​ ​
man
​ of today because yesterday ​
the ​
Moscow
​ ​
man
​ DID NOT EXIST. You confuse the past with the future and the fact that the
two can not be treated the same way.​


> ​> ​
> you must not neglect the question asked
>

​I have no choice, I must ​
neglect the question asked
​ because nobody knows what that ​question is, least of all you.


> ​> ​
> which concerns the first person experience expected.
>

​I care about the truth not expectations, and which THE first person
experience are you talking about? THE first person experience of the
Helsinki man today? THE first person experience of the Helsinki man
tomorrow? THE first person experience of the  Moscow man today? THE first
person experience of the  Moscow man yesterday? THE first person experience
of the Washington man today? THE first person experience of the Washington
man yesterday? Or the first person experiences today of the people who
remember being in Helsinki yesterday. I need precision, sloppy language
just won't do.

​> ​
> You will become two is only the third person description.
>

Which  first person experience
​ Is Mr. You, which ONE is different from all the others and uniquely
​deserves the noble title of "*THE*"?

​>>
 ​>>​
 ​
 but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT
 EXIST.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​>
 ​>> ​
 ​That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in Helsinki,
>>>
>>>
>>> ​
>>> ​>> ​
>>> Now you're changing the meaning of "the Moscow man" again,
>>
>>

​> ​
> Not at all. Come on, we have agreed that,
>

​We did but then unannounced you changed what the phrase meant in the
middle of your post. We had agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who
saw Moscow, but yesterday nobody saw Moscow so obviously yesterday the
Moscow man DID NOT EXIST. But now you say "the Moscow man" did exist
yesterday, so I have no idea what you now mean by  ​"the Moscow man" and
you have no idea either. Once again you're trying to push on a string
because once again you don't understand that there is a difference between
the past and the future.

 we have agreed that, roughly speaking:

W-man = H-man
> M-man = H-man


​That is very misleading, the H-man existed in the past but both the W-man
and the M-man will exist in the future. It would be more accurate to say
one is the proper subset of the other:

W-man
​>​
 H-man
M-man
​>​
 H-man

​You are the Bruno Marchal of one year ago but he is not you; you are
everything ​he was but you are more than him because you have had
experiences in the last year that year ago Bruno knows nothing about.

W-man ≠ M-man


​Of that I certainly agree,​



> ​>> ​
>> when you ask the question "What city do you expect to see?" who are you
>> asking,  the Moscow man or the Washington man?
>
>

​> ​
> At that moment, you can consider them as fused. The H-man is both of them,
>

​Both? If there are two there must be a difference between the H-man and
the M-man, but at that stage nobody has seen Moscow or Washington, so what
is that difference between the H-man the M-man and the W-man? If there is
no difference it will only cause confusion to give them different names.
And what in the world does "the M man" even mean if it doesn't mean the man
who sees Moscow?


> ​> ​
> I am asking just the H-man, about what he expect
> ​ [...]​
>

​He expects ​
Santa Claus's workshop
​! ​

I don't give a damn what the
H-man
​ expects to happen tomorrow, ​but I do give a damn about who remembers
tomorrow being the H-man today.


> ​> ​
> the prediction of the first person experience.
>

​There is not one and only one correct prediction if the future includes
use of a
first person experience
​ duplicating machine! ​

​>> ​
>> This is some complicated stuff we have no experience in so intuition is
>> of little help, thus words can't be used casually, precision of meaning is
>> essential.
>
>
​>​
Don't patronize please.

​After reading the 999th personal pronoun with no referent ​​I have come to
the conclusion patronization is necessary.​

​
>> ​>> ​
>> you can't specify ​exactly what is suposed to be predicted.​
>
>
> ​> ​
> I don't understand that remark at all. You know you will push on a button,
> open a door and see a city, which will be either W or M,
>

​And you just complained  I was patronizing you, well this is why. Who the
hell was that Mr. YOU yesterday that was suposed to see something today?.
The prediction can't be about the John Clark who experienced yesterday in
Helsinki because that John Clark 

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

2017-09-22 Thread Bruno Marchal


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




On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​>​Yesterday the Moscow man we can see today, was the Helsinki  
man.


​No. We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow,  
but yesterday nobody saw  ​Moscow.


We agreed that the Moscow-man is the Helsinki man, like we agree that  
the Washington-man is also the Helsinki-man.

they are the same person, even if now they live in separate location.



So yesterday I would have said "I predict that I the Helsinki man  
will become two and become the Moscow man and the Washington man,  
but as of today neither of those gentleman have been born yet  
because as of today nobody has seen Moscow or Washington".  You've  
got to keep your terms straight, it's important.


But you must not neglect the question asked which concerns the first  
person experience expected.


You will become two is only the third person description. It is  
correct, but it miss the mention that those two will live the  
experience of being in one city, not of being in two city.


So if you agree with P(tea) = 1, you agree with P(I see only one city)  
= 1, too. So the H-guy can expect with P = 1 to feel in ONE city after  
pushing the button. And obviously the H)guy cannot say which one, as  
he knows that this will be false for at least one copy (and we want  
all the copies verifying the predictions).









​>> ​but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man  
DID NOT EXIST.


​> ​That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in  
Helsinki,


​Now you're changing the meaning of "the Moscow man" again,


Not at all. Come on, we have agreed that, roughly speaking:

W-man = H-man
M-man = H-man
W-man ≠ M-man



but OK if that's the new meaning then the Washington man existed in  
Helsinki too. So when you ask the question "What city do you expect  
to see?" who are you asking,  the Moscow man or the Washington man?



At that moment, you can consider them as fused. The H-man is both of  
them, and that stage there is no problem of consistency, as the M and  
W man have not yet differentiated. There is just no problem, because I  
am asking just the H-man, about what he expect to live, given that he  
believes in computationalism and the respect of the protocol.






If you want people to understand what you're saying you've got to  
get your terms straight and stop changing then in mid sentence!


​>>​It was the very act of seeing Moscow that turned the Helsinki  
man into the Moscow man,


​> ​Without in any way killing the Helsinki man,

​That depends on what "the Helsinki man" means, if it means  
remembering being in Helsinki yesterday them the Helsinki man is  
alive and well today and is in two places,  if it means the man  
currently experiencing Helsinki then the Helsinki man is dead as a  
doornail.



Just read any posts in the past? We have agreed on all this.






The trouble is not only do your personal pronouns have no referent  
but even the proper nouns have foggy meaning that change constantly.



I told you that the problem is equivalent for proper names and  
pronouns.  The solution is the same. just keep track all the times of  
the difference between the 3p and 1p discourses, and take this into  
account for the prediction of the first person experience.





This is some complicated stuff we have no experience in so intuition  
is of little help, thus words can't be used casually, precision of  
meaning is essential.


Don't patronize please. Keep in mind that UDA is not just what I found  
50 years ago, it was also used only to motivate the precise definition  
given in arithmetic. Self-reference is my expertize in logic, and  
given that the "measure" problem concerns the domain of the first  
person experience, that has been what took me many years, until I  
realize that incompleteness makes the antique definition of Theaetetus  
working again in arithmetical self-reference.


Now, here you make the step 3 looking difficult for basically nothing,  
as the 1p and 3p definition used the simplest part of digital  
mechanism: the personal memory. That is why in France they insisted  
that I put the UDA as the main argument, actually, because kids  
understands this easily indeed.






​> ​What you can't predict is the specific location

​And that is because you can't specify ​exactly what is suposed  
to be predicted.​



I don't understand that remark at all. You know you will push on a  
button, open a door and see a city, which will be either W or M, and  
the question is how you evaluate the chance to be in W, say. P(W) = ?


(Where, to repeat and avoid any ambiguity, "W" and "M" refer not to a  
city, but to the first person experience of opening the door and  
seeing a city").








​​>> ​John Clark canneither agree nor disagree with that until  
Bruno Marchal explains if "you" is only the guy currently in  
Helsinki today or if "you"  

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

2017-09-21 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>​
> Yesterday the Moscow man we can see today, was the Helsinki man.
>

​No. We agreed that "the Moscow man" means the man who saw Moscow, but
yesterday nobody saw  ​Moscow. So yesterday I would have said "I predict
that I the Helsinki man will become two and become the Moscow man and the
Washington man, but as of today neither of those gentleman have been born
yet because as of today nobody has seen Moscow or Washington".  You've got
to keep your terms straight, it's important.

​>> ​
>> but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT EXIST.
>
>
> ​> ​
> That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in Helsinki,
>

​Now you're changing the meaning of "the Moscow man" again, but OK if
that's the new meaning then the Washington man existed in Helsinki too. So
when you ask the question "What city do you expect to see?" who are you
asking,  the Moscow man or the Washington man? If you want people to
understand what you're saying you've got to get your terms straight and
stop changing then in mid sentence!

​>>​
>> It was the very act of seeing Moscow that turned the Helsinki man into
>> the Moscow man,
>
>
> ​> ​
> Without in any way killing the Helsinki man,
>

​That depends on what "the Helsinki man" means, if it means remembering
being in Helsinki yesterday them the Helsinki man is alive and well today
and is in two places,  if it means the man currently experiencing Helsinki
then the Helsinki man is dead as a doornail. The trouble is not only do
your personal pronouns have no referent but even the proper nouns have
foggy meaning that change constantly. This is some complicated stuff we
have no experience in so intuition is of little help, thus words can't be
used casually, precision of meaning is essential.

​> ​
> What you can't predict is the specific location
>

​And that is because you can't specify ​exactly
what is suposed to be predicted.​

​
>> ​>> ​
>> John Clark canneither 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.
>
>
> ​> ​
> This has been answered many times. "you" means the guy in Helsinki,
>

​If that's what "you" means then I predict​

​I will experience absolutely nothing tomorrow because tomorrow I will no
longer be the guy in Helsinki.  ​

​> ​
> Well, that could be confusing.


 No shit Sherlock
​.​


> ​> ​
> Just use the diaries,
>

​For what,
toilet paper
​?

  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")

2017-09-20 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 19 Sep 2017, at 22:19, John Clark wrote:

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!


Good.



You complain that yesterday ​the Moscow man


Well, that could be confusing. Yesterday the Moscow man we can see  
today, was the Helsinki man. better to keep calling it that way. They  
are the same person of course (assuming mechanism ...).





couldn't predict that he would see Moscow,


Yes, indeed. he would have written "M", that wopuld be refuted by the  
W-guy, and we have decided that a good theory/prediction must be valid  
for all copies.




but of course he couldn't because yesterday the Moscow man DID NOT  
EXIST.


That makes no sense. Of course he did exist, he was in Helsinki, he  
has all the relevant memories, or he did not survive and  
computationalism is false.




It was the very act of seeing Moscow that turned the Helsinki man  
into the Moscow man,


Without in any way killing the Helsinki man, or comp (yes doctor + CT)  
is false.





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.


No. In this case you are just not using the personal identity criteria  
we have agreed on. Now you tlak like if the Helsinki guy is killed  
when opening the door. But that makes no sense.






What does it even mean? Who exactly is the prediction about?


The question is simply what should a believer in computationalism  
expect when undergoing the step-3 WM-duplication experience. In a  
written modern exam you would have the choice to mention which is the  
correct expectation among:


a) I expect to feel myself in one of the two cities, W or M. P(W v M)  
= 1

b) I expect to feel myself in two cities at once: W and M. P( W & M) = 1
c) I expect to feel myself in W. P(W) = 1
d) I expect to feel myself in M. P(M) = 1.

By definition, a correct or accurate prediction is one verified by all  
copies (in the finite case), and almost all copies in the infinite case.


here "I" denote the person to which the question is asked before he  
push on the button.




Who do you wan't to make the prediction and lament that he can not?


We are telling you that kids can find the accurate prediction without  
any trouble. There is nothing to lament about. What you can't predict  
is the specific location, but you can predict "W v M" with total  
confidence.


You talk like if that was controversial, but it is not. It follows  
quasi doirectly from the definition of the 1p and 3p notion used in  
this context, and the criteria of personal identity used.


Actually you got it yesterday, and just said that it was trivial and  
that nobody is interested, instead of the normal "I got the point so  
let us move to the next point".





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?"​ ​Peas 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​" 

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

2017-09-19 Thread 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")

2017-09-19 Thread 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 

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

2017-09-18 Thread John Clark
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*!

​> ​
> 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. Y
ou 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 about what one and only one city I ended up seeing. "Will
the coin fall heads or tails?" is a real question and although I might not
know it the answer the answer exists. The problem with "What city will I
see?" isn't that I don't know the answer it's that the answer doesn't exist
today and 

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

2017-09-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 18 Sep 2017, at 01:30, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


I hope you are fine.

​Thank you Bruno, I'm OK.​


Good.




​> ​Mr. His was sure that his first person experience will be of  
being in one city, then he pushed on the button, and both the copies  
claim, "yes that prediction was correct: when opening the door I  
made the experience of seeing only once city.


​And if two copies claims were "I saw one and only one city so the  
prediction that I,  would see one and only one city was correct"   
then a logical contradiction would result because there are two of  
them.


In the third person description. In the duplication we must make  
precise, both with pronouns and proper names if we talk about the 1p  
or the 3p. As we have agreed that the 3p copies are both genuine  
Helsinki-guy survivor, it becomes rather easy, and there are no  
logical contradiction.





So the claims can not be correct even if they sincerely believe they  
are.



They are obviously (with the mechanist assumption) correct. Both  
copies saw only one city, and both were unable to predict in advance  
which one they would feel to see.




All this assumes the personal pronoun "I" means anybody who  
remembers being asked the question yesterday in Helsinki, and if "I"  
doesn't mean that then what "I" mean?.



No problem. We have agreed on this. The point is that the two copies  
were not able to predict their specific experience. But they can  
predict a non specific experience like I will feel to be either in W  
or in M. And that is confirmed by the two copies, which is the  
criteria for verifying a prediction of a first person experience?





​>> ​If Mr. His had been correct then after the duplication all  
the people who remember being Mr. His


​> ​Sorry, but that is the third person description of Mister His.

​That's what I don't get, If today Mr. His isn't anybody who  
remembers being asked the question yesterday then who is Mr. Hid  
today? ​


You just need to make precise if you talk of body (3p) or of first  
person experience (soul, knower, ...)..


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


But from Mr. His' personal view point after the duplication, he (which  
denotes both guys)  can only feel to be at once place, and it has to  
be, for both of them, one among the two W and M cities.







​> ​The question was about what he expected to live.

​Then the question is of no scientific of philosophic significance



You could have said this before as it has always been that same  
question. The whole point is that physics use an identity criteria  
refuted by Mechanism. Wait perhaps for the study of the next steps to  
judge the significance.






and I don't understand why we keep talking about something so trivial.



Yes, it is very simple. So perhaps now you can move on step 4. It  
remains as simple up to step 6.





Most people expect Jesus Christ will return in a few years but that  
doesn't mean he will.  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. The answer is just given in the mechanist  
assumption and the protocol. The interesting things is the 1p. It is  
still very trivial indeed at that stage, yet can be considered as  
deep, as it shows that mechanism, which is utter 3p-determinism  
entails an irreducible randomness in the subjective experience of  
machine or people. later, we will see how crucial is that form of  
randomness.







​> comp predicts "the guy will feel to be in one city, that he  
could not have predicted before"


​So there is something called "comp" that can predict it but  
nothing can predict it.


Yes. If we are digital machine then we are duplicable. And the theory  
predicts or explains entirely that from its first person pov the  
person undergoing the split cannot feel the split, nor predict his  
self-localization measurement.






Nobody knows the answer because nobody knows the question.


You just did know it above.



What exactly is "it"? Yes yes I know," it" is about the first person  
view, but that is all predictable, tomorrow the the first person  
view​ of the Moscow man will be Moscow


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).





and tomorrow the the first person view​ of the Washington man will  
be Washington


The point is that you cannot predict in Helsinki if you will be the  
Washington man *from your first person subjectyive experience".





and
tomorrow there will be no first person view​ of Helsinki at all.  
The only reason more can't be predicted is because you can't say  
exactly what it is you 

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

2017-09-17 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

I hope you are fine.
>

​Thank you Bruno, I'm OK.​



> ​> ​
> Mr. His was sure that his first person experience will be of being in one
> city, then he pushed on the button, and both the copies claim, "yes that
> prediction was correct: when opening the door I made the experience of
> seeing only once city.
>

​And if two copies claims were "I saw one and only one city so the
prediction that I,  would see one and only one city was correct"  then a
logical contradiction would result because there are two of them. So the
claims can not be correct even if they sincerely believe they are. All this
assumes the personal pronoun "I" means anybody who remembers being asked
the question yesterday in Helsinki, and if "I" doesn't mean that then what
"I" mean?.

​>> ​
>> If Mr. His had been correct then after the duplication all the people who
>> remember being Mr. His
>
>
> ​> ​
> Sorry, but that is the third person description of Mister His.
>

​That's what I don't get, If today Mr. His isn't anybody who remembers
being asked the question yesterday then who is Mr. Hid today? ​


> ​> ​
> The question was about what he expected to live.
>

​Then the question is of no scientific of philosophic significance and I
don't understand why we keep talking about something so trivial. Most
people expect Jesus Christ will return in a few years but that doesn't mean
he will.
 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?".  ​


​>
>  comp predicts "the guy will feel to be in one city, that he could not
> have predicted before"


​
So there is something called "comp" that can predict it but nothing can
predict it. Nobody knows the answer because nobody knows the question. What
exactly is "it"? Yes yes I know," it" is about the first person view, but
that is all predictable, tomorrow the the first person view
​
of the Moscow man will be Moscow and tomorrow the the first person view
​
of the Washington man will be Washington and
tomorrow there will be no first person view
​
of Helsinki at all. The only reason more can't be predicted is because you
can't say exactly what it is you want predicted.

​> ​
> You play dumb or what.
>

​I don't think I'm significantly dumber than average so it must be or what.​



> ​> ​
> The prediction is made before,
> ​
> but the verification is the one made by each first person obtained.
>

​Nothing can be verified if its not know who the prediction was supposed to
be about, and that is as clear as mud.​

​You say it's not about the people who remember being asked the question so
I have no idea who the prediction is about and thus have no way of knowing
if any prediction was right or wrong. ​


> ​
>> ​>> ​
>> And AFTER the button is pushed there are 2 people who go by the name "he"
>> which causes endless confusion,
>
>
> ​> ​
> Here, you give credits to those who think you lie and try to deliberately
> be confusing.
>

​Bruno just think about that for a minute, why on earth would I do that?​
Why would I pretend not understand something when I really do, and why
would I keep up such a silly charade for years? Maybe just maybe you should
entertain the possibility that some people sincerely think you're dead
wrong. And speaking of sincerity, do you really believe personal pronouns
can be used just as they always have been even after people duplicating
machines have become common without creating any confusion?


> ​> ​
> We have agreed since long that both are equal in being continuators of the
> H-guy.
>

​I thought we agreed about that too, and I thought we we also agreed that
1+1=2
but apparently not because if both those things are true then the H-guy
will see 2 cities
​but​
 you insist the H-guy will see only one.
​ And yeah yeah I know, I confuse...​

But I think you're the one who is confused, you're confused by the fact
that there are two the first person views, one in Washington and one in
Moscow and both of them are the H-guy.


>
>> ​>> ​
>> If it's one did it turn out to be Moscow or Washington?​
>
>
> ​> ​
> You asked this before.
>

​I know I've asked that before and I received no answer before, and I don't
expect to receive an answer this time either.  ​



> ​> ​
> Please read what follow very carefully,
>

​If it's​

​a real question then there is a one word answer, and I don't need to read
one word carefully. ​


> ​> ​
> Now you tell me that this means only the tautological "the M-man finds M",
> and the "W-man finds W",
>

​Yep.​ Very dull and of no scientific philosophic or mathematical interest
whatsoever but nevertheless 100% true.


> ​> ​
> both are still the same H-guy,
>

​Yep.​


> ​> ​
> and that the H-guy was unable to predict which precise city he will feel
> to survive through in that experience.
>

​That's because there isn't one precise city that is ​correct 

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

2017-09-16 Thread Terren Suydam
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:54 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at  Terren Suydam  wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> Hope you and yours came through the storm ok.
>>
>
> ​Thanks, we're OK, the storm weakened to 90 mph from 180 when it hit us,
> that was bad but 90 only  produces 1/8th of the force 180 mph would have.​
>
>
That's such a John Clark response, and I mean that affectionately. Glad
you're ok.


> ​> ​
>> Since the question is about the future, there's no useful distinction
>> between a question about "where I will be" and "where I expect to be".
>>
>
>
> ​
> A question about what I expect is never gibberish, ​a question about what
> will be might or might not be.
>
>

I'm only concerned with the perspective of the person about to enter the
duplicator. That person can only answer in terms of what they expect to
happen. "Where I will be" is not a statement about reality, it's a
statement about what's in the subject's head.

-- 
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")

2017-09-16 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at  Terren Suydam  wrote:

​> ​
> Hope you and yours came through the storm ok.
>

​Thanks, we're OK, the storm weakened to 90 mph from 180 when it hit us,
that was bad but 90 only  produces 1/8th of the force 180 mph would have.​

​> ​
> Since the question is about the future, there's no useful distinction
> between a question about "where I will be" and "where I expect to be".
>


​​
Santa Claus's workshop
​ is most certainly where I expect to be, if the question is not gibberish
​time will tell if my expectation turned out to be correct or not. Time
will also tell if the question turned out to be gibberish or not; if after
the event a answer STILL doesn't exist then that can only be because there
was no question in the first place, there was only words and a question
mark.


> ​> ​
> Both questions are about what you expect.
>

​A question about what I expect is never gibberish, ​a question about what
will be might or might not be.


> ​> ​
> if you are secretly duplicated
> ​ [...]​
>

​Then I will have have been deceived and as a result will draw erroneous
conclusions.   ​


​ 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")

2017-09-11 Thread Terren Suydam
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:00 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> No, you said:
>>
>> True, it's not gibberish. The question is clear, it's about what I expect
>>> not what will turn out to be true. I might expect to wake up in ​Santa
>>> Claus's workshop
>>
>>
> If I expected to be in Santa Claus's workshop
> ​ ​
> tomorrow and you asked me, not where I will be but where I **expected**
> ​to be ​
> then it would be a real question and "Santa Claus's workshop
> ​" would be the correct answer. I'd write more but ​at the moment
> Hurricane Irma is more on my mind than more of this silliness.
>

Hope you and yours came through the storm ok.

Since the question is about the future, there's no useful distinction
between a question about "where I will be" and "where I expect to be". Both
questions are about what you expect. Whether I ask you where you will be
when you wake up, or if you go through a teleporter, you've acknowledged
that the question is not gibberish, in scenarios where *you're not aware*
of being duplicated. That said, if you are secretly duplicated, questions
about where "you" will be may be gibberish (from your perspective), but
that doesn't change the fact that from the first-person point of view, the
question is not gibberish.

-- 
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")

2017-09-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Sep 2017, at 21:15, John Clark wrote:

I wrote the following a few days ago but didn't send it because I  
intended to say more, but other things came up that seemed more  
important so this will just have to do.


I hope you are fine.




On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​when in still in Helsinki, can be sure that his first person  
experience will be of being in once city,


​Mr. His may have been absolutely sure​ ​but Mr. His was also  
absolutely incorrect​, that tends to happen a lot.


Not at all. Mr. His was sure that his first person experience will be  
of being in one city, then he pushed on the button, and both the  
copies claim, "yes that prediction was correct: when opening the door  
I made the experience of seeing only once city.





If Mr. His had been correct then after the duplication all the  
people who remember being Mr. His


Sorry, but that is the third person description of Mister His. The  
question was about what he expected to live. The result of the  
"opening the door" experience.






would be in only one city but clearly they are in two.


Obviously, but you are for the billions times deviating about the  
question. The question is "do you expect to get  soon a coffee in some  
city? and then which one do you expect. You, here and now, as a guy  
who will survive in two cities tomorrow. You will not expect the  
experience of being simultaneously in two city. With mechanism, you  
sill expect to live in once precise city, but you know well that yiou  
cannot write its name in the diary right now, as it will be refuted by  
one copy.










​> ​and that he cannot prdict which one.

​Which one? When the prediction was made there was only one.


One which admits he will survive in tow cities, in the third person  
(or first person plural) sense we sue since always.


Yes, the prediction is about what you will feel. And comp predicts  
"the guy will feel to be in one city, that he could not have predicted  
before"





Please explain exactly what that means,



It means that in Helsinki the guy is absolutely sure (modulo the  
hypostheses) that he will drink a coffee, in a precise city, that he  
recognize could not have been guessed in advance.







hell even approximately what it means would be a vast improvement.








​

 ​> ​"he" will very well know where "he" feel to be after pushing  
the button.



​After? ​Nobody can make a prediction AFTER pushing the  
button​​ because then its not a predicting its just reporting.


You play dumb or what. The prediction is made before, but the  
verification is the one made by each first person obtained. And both  
confirm: they got the cup of coffee in a precise city, and undrestand  
it would have been futile and wrong to have try to guess which one  
would be lived.








​And AFTER the button is pushed there are 2 people who go by the  
name "he" which causes endless confusion,


Here, you give credits to those who think you lie and try to  
deliberately be confusing. We have agreed since long that both are  
equal in being continuators of the H-guy. That is why the a good  
prediction is one verified by all or most personal diaries. "W v M"  
win everywhere, "W" and "M" win somewhere and lose somewhere, and "W &  
M" loses everywhere.


Which everyone can see by looking at the personal diaries.








​> ​the prediction is about his *future* first person experience.

​So you tell me did "his" end up in, one or two?


By the very description of the experience:  "his" end up in two, from  
the 3p view, and ends in one, from the 1p view.



 If it's one did it turn out to be Moscow or Washington?​



You asked this before. Please read what follow very carefully, because  
here you miss or hides something you have agreed on: both copies are  
the H-guy. So when I ask the H-guy in Washington, visiting after the  
experience, he tell me that he got W, and could have predict it with  
certainty, unlike the coffee. Same when I visit the H-Guy in Moscow,  
who remember also the question, and understand that he got a precise  
result.


Now you tell me that this means only the tautological "the M-man finds  
M", and the "W-man finds W", but the whole first person indeterminacy  
is that both are still the same H-guy, and that the H-guy was unable  
to predict which precise city he will feel to survive through in that  
experience.


The prediction is on the non tautological passage from the H-guy into  
a M-guy and W-guy. The third person "and" is made into a first person  
"or".







​>> ​that one and only one city the H-man sees is Helsinki. ​

​>​Not after pushing the button.

​IRRELEVANT! The question MUST be asked BEFORE pushing the button.


But that is the case. All along. Since always.





What exactly did the Helsinki Man fail to predict? ​


The name of the city that he will write in his personal diary soon.






​> ​The first person experiences available 

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

2017-09-08 Thread John Clark
*I wrote the following a few days ago but didn't send it because I intended
to say more, but other things came up that seemed more important so this
will just have to do.*

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> when in still in Helsinki, can be sure that his first person experience
> will be of being in once city,
>

​Mr. His may have been absolutely sure​

​but Mr. His was also absolutely incorrect​, that tends to happen a lot. If
Mr. His had been correct then after the duplication all the people who
remember being Mr. His would be in only one city but clearly they are in
two.


> ​> ​
> and that he cannot prdict which one.
>

​Which one? When the prediction was made there was only one. Please explain
exactly what that means, hell even approximately what it means would be a
vast improvement.  ​


> ​> ​
> "he" will very well know where "he" feel to be after pushing the button.
>


​After? ​
Nobody can make a prediction AFTER pushing the button​
​ because then its not a predicting its just reporting.

​And AFTER the button is pushed there are 2 people who go by the name "he"
which causes endless confusion, but that's not a bug its a feature if you
want to hide fuzzy thinking.​


> ​> ​
> the prediction is about his *future* first person experience.
>

​So you tell me did "his" end up in, one or two? If it's one did it turn
out to be Moscow or Washington?​



​>> ​
>> that one and only one city the H-man sees is Helsinki. ​
>
>
> ​>​
> Not after pushing the button.
>

​IRRELEVANT! The question MUST be asked BEFORE pushing the button. What
exactly did the Helsinki Man fail to predict? ​



> ​> ​
> The first person experiences available are "feeling to be in Moscow" and
> "feeling to be in Washington"
>

​And after the button is pushed BOTH of those feelings will be felt by
somebody who remembers how things were BEFORE the button was pushed. So If
Mr. Beforethebutton​ispushed

​said "What one and only one city will I, ​
Mr. Beforethebutton​ispushed

​see after the button is pushed?" is that a question or is that gibberish?
If it's a real question then it must have an answer even if that answer
can't be predicted, so you tell me, does it have an answer, one and only
one answer?​



> ​>>​
>> ​ ​
>> and only one of them can occur for any of its future first person
>> experience.
>
>
> ​> ​
> You just continue to ignore that the question is on a future first-person
> experience.
>

​There are 2 ​
 first-person experience
​s and the Helsinki man ​correctly predicted who would see what. And n
obody and nothing can
​predict ​
the thing that caused the
​m​
to come into existence because the first requirement in being a good
predictor is existing.
​Seeing Washington cause the Washington Man to exist and seeing Moscow
caused the Moscow to exist​.


> ​> ​
> There is no ambiguity,
>

​Then name the one and only one city it turned out to be!​

​

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")

2017-09-08 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

No, you said:
>
> True, it's not gibberish. The question is clear, it's about what I expect
>> not what will turn out to be true. I might expect to wake up in ​Santa
>> Claus's workshop
>
>
If I expected to be in Santa Claus's workshop
​ ​
tomorrow and you asked me, not where I will be but where I **expected**
​to be ​
then it would be a real question and "Santa Claus's workshop
​" would be the correct answer. I'd write more but ​at the moment Hurricane
Irma is more on my mind than more of this silliness.

 John K Clark





> but I might be wrong, my expectations have been proven to be wrong before.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Terren Suydam 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> You admitted earlier that the question is not gibberish when you don't
>>> know you're being duplicated elsewhere.
>>>
>>
>> ​I admitted nothing of the sort! The question is always 100% pure
>> gibberish but I did not know it was gibberish because I was deceived and
>> given false information.​
>>
>> ​If you give me incorrect data I will form incorrect conclusions.​
>>
>>  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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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")

2017-09-08 Thread Terren Suydam
No, you said:

True, it's not gibberish. The question is clear, it's about what I expect
> not what will turn out to be true. I might expect to wake up in ​Santa
> Claus's workshop but I might be wrong, my expectations have been proven to
> be wrong before.



On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> You admitted earlier that the question is not gibberish when you don't
>> know you're being duplicated elsewhere.
>>
>
> ​I admitted nothing of the sort! The question is always 100% pure
> gibberish but I did not know it was gibberish because I was deceived and
> given false information.​
>
> ​If you give me incorrect data I will form incorrect conclusions.​
>
>  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.
>

-- 
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")

2017-09-08 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2017-09-07 14:32 GMT+02:00 John Clark :

>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> You admitted earlier that the question is not gibberish when you don't
>> know you're being duplicated elsewhere.
>>
>
> ​I admitted nothing of the sort! The question is always 100% pure
> gibberish but I did not know it was gibberish because I was deceived and
> given false information.​
>
> ​If you give me incorrect data I will form incorrect conclusions.​
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
According to John Clark, John Clark believe in MWI (or find it plausible),
so according to John Clark where from it's own POV he will be tomorrow (or
in the next second) is gibberish... as tomorrow there will be an infinity
of John Clark (well, even in the next nanosecond... so scary...). So we
have to conclude John Clark is gibberish. Won't say that I knew it


>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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")

2017-09-07 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

​> ​
> You admitted earlier that the question is not gibberish when you don't
> know you're being duplicated elsewhere.
>

​I admitted nothing of the sort! The question is always 100% pure gibberish
but I did not know it was gibberish because I was deceived and given false
information.​

​If you give me incorrect data I will form incorrect conclusions.​

 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")

2017-09-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 06 Sep 2017, at 18:38, John Clark wrote:




On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​It contradicts nothing. We're not talking about the H-person,  
you're complaining that neither the Moscow Man nor the Washington  
Man could​ ​have made a prediction, and they couldn't because  
they didn't exist before the duplication.​


​> ​That contradicts your statement that the H-episode belongs to  
the life of both copies.


​My statement was if "the H man"  is anyone tomorrow who remembers  
being in H today then tomorrow "the H man" will be in 2 cities.


That is right in some third-person description. But the two H-man will  
feel to be in only one city, and so, the H-man, when in still in  
Helsinki, can be sure that his first person experience will be of  
being in once city, and that he cannot prdict which one.





My statement is crystal clear and as I said contradicts nothing.


Only because you confuse "where will you be from an outsider pov" with  
the question asked: "where do you expect to feel to be after pushing  
the button". Obviously you do not expect to *feel* to be in the two  
cities simultaneously.






Your statement is, today before the duplication "he" can't predict  
that "he" will be in Moscow tomorrow after the duplication;



No. My statement is, today before the duplication "he" can't predict  
where "he" will feel to be.






and nobody will ever know if your statement contradicts something or  
not because nobody will ever know who "he" is suposed to be.



That is false, "he" will very well know where "he" feel to be after  
pushing the button.








 ​>​>>​ ​​ ​indeed, in both cities).

​​>> ​Yes, in BOTH cities!!​​ ​So will the Helsinki ​ 
Man see both cities? I say yes, Bruno says no. Go figure.


​> ​He will see both cities from the 3-1 view.

​Good old Mr. He, don't you just love him! What a great job "he"  
does at sweeping logical absurdities under the rug.  ​


​> ​Obviously, The H-man will see only one city in his first  
person views accessible from Helsinki,


Yes. ​If it's before the duplication, and I assume that's when you  
want the prediction to be made because otherwise it's not a  
prediction,


Of course. But the prediction is about his *future* first person  
experience.




then that one and only one city the H-man sees is Helsinki. ​


Not after pushing the button. The first person experiences available  
are "feeling to be in Moscow" and "feeling to be in Washington", and  
only one of them can occur for any of its future first person  
experience.


You just continue to ignore that the question is on a future first- 
person experience.


There is no ambiguity, thanks to the numerical precision we have with  
the digital hypothesis.


The H-man knows, with probability 1, that he will feel to have  
survived in one city among two possible one. He knows in Helsinki that  
after pushing the button, and opening the door, he will see only one  
city, and get a cup of coffee. But after pushing the button, and  
before opening the door, he cannot know which city is behind the door.  
He can look at a screen telling him that the reconstitution has been a  
success, but he (wherever "he" is now) cannot know which city is  
there. He is in a state of complete uncertainty, and then he open the  
door, see one city, and write its name in the diary, and, as predicted  
in Helsinki, he got that one bit of information he expected. "he"  
refers always to the H-man, and its sense only differ according to the  
first or third person view in consideration. After pushing the button,  
we can say, to be short, that "he" is in two city, and "he" feels to  
be in one city, indeed, "he" feels that in the two cities. Now, just  
take into account that the question is about what he expect to live,  
feel, experience, ... always in the FIRST-PERSON sense.



Bruno






​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.


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.


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

2017-09-06 Thread Terren Suydam
You admitted earlier that the question is not gibberish when you don't know
you're being duplicated elsewhere. Therefore, you must agree that the
question is not gibberish from the first-person perspective, even if you
think it's gibberish from the third-person perspective.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Terren Suydam 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> That's identical to the scenario I posited before, where you expect to be
>> teleported to Barcelona, but unbeknownst to you, you may also have been
>> duplicated in Paris.
>>
>
> ​John Clark expected to end up in ​Barcelona and only Barcelona but
> because of incorrect information John Clark's expectation turned out to be
> wrong. If you want me to say I am capable of being tricked I freely admit
> it.
>
> If John Clark had correct information and heard "What one and only one
> city will you end up in?" John Clark would say nothing because there is
> nothing to say in response to gibberish.
>
>  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.
>

-- 
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.


  1   2   3   4   >