which give different answers because they
involve different situations.
You conflate the two.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:54 -0500
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
From: jasonre...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, John Clark johnkcl
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
An uploaded mind is running within a computer process. If the mind presses
a button inside its virtual environment, the process will fork and if
within the simulation of the child process a light within the virtual
ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:
@ Bruno
[John]Bruno Marchal is correct
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:24 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You agreed already that a conscious uploaded mind in a process that forks
and diverges is from the uploaded mind's point of view, an
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction can't even be
described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the experiment and
compile statistics from it and then compare the number obtained from
experiment with
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You agreed already that a conscious uploaded mind in a process that forks
and diverges is from the uploaded mind's point of view, an experience
indistinguishable from fundamental randomness.
If it is
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
UDA is for the babies
And so are pompous homemade acronyms.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
heaven
works as well?
-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2015 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:33 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Forget about giving the correct prediction, a prediction can't even be
described by any means. Bruno thinks we can repeat the experiment and
compile
.
--
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:
@ Bruno
*[John]Bruno Marchal is correct, that is not ambiguous, that is
a flat out
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:52:22 +0200
On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the
duplicating chamber is opened John Clark
. Personally, I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless
you try a bit harder.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno
[John]Bruno Marchal
you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno
[John]Bruno Marchal is correct, that is not ambiguous
is decoherent where Bruno is incoherent?
From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:04:56 +
@ Bruno
[John]Bruno Marchal is correct, that is not ambiguous, that is a
flat out logical contradiction
-p, p-p confusions but is a direct
consequence of how you define your terms, Bruno.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:52:22 +0200
On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John Clark knows that's not exactly what was asked but if a better
definition of you is given a better answer will be provided.
It has been given, and we have agreed on it.
We agreed
(or I thought we had)
On 24 Jul 2015, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
John Clark knows that's not exactly what was asked but if a
better definition of you is given a better answer will be provided.
It has been given, and we have
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber
is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the personal
pronoun is not ambiguous because although there are 2 bodies they
On 24 Jul 2015, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the
duplicating chamber is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he
(at this point the personal pronoun is not
Le 23 juil. 2015 21:44, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating
chamber is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the
on Gödel's theorem
(especially after Penrose), and few logicians knows about Everett.
Well, there are other factors which are more contingent.
The point is that computationalism explains that 3p-determinism
entails 1p-indeterminism.
Bruno
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
take the Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem
will go away by pretending it doesn't exist.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200
Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark
From: allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Le 23 juil. 2015
On 23 Jul 2015, at 00:19, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
So you're claiming that the probability of seeing spin up
while doing a measurement of the spin is one (likewise seeing spin
down) right?
That is neither right nor wrong
On 22 Jul 2015, at 22:15, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results
Yes, provided that you means somebody who remembers being
Quentin Anciaux at this instant. MWI says
head on. Does he over come
it? Im not brainy enough to say. But I am brainy enough to see that
he doesn't take the Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem
will go away by pretending it doesn't exist.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200
Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark
From: allco
On 23 Jul 2015, at 01:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/22/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my
computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or
On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually John Clark pretends that half the John Clark's who
say I bet Quentin Anciaux will see spin up when the electron is
measured will win the bet.
On 23 Jul 2015, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear
what the probability refers to; the probability of *who* seeing
spin up?
Oh, You said us that in the
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber
is opened John Clark may have a hunch that he (at this point the personal
pronoun is not ambiguous because although there are 2 bodies
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No he did not. He
[Quentin means John Clark. I think]
pretends probabilities do have meaning in MWI. When he says 0.5 with his
bet
Actually John Clark pretends that half the John Clark's who say I bet
Quentin
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results
Yes, provided that you means somebody who remembers being
Quentin Anciaux
at this instant. MWI says everything that doesn't violate the laws
Le 23 juil. 2015 17:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No he did not. He
[Quentin means John Clark. I think]
pretends probabilities do have meaning in MWI. When he says 0.5 with his
bet
Actually John Clark
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear what the
probability refers to; the probability of *who* seeing spin up?
Oh, You said us that in the MWI there were no problem as the copies cannot
Le 23 juil. 2015 19:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually John Clark pretends that half the John Clark's who say I
bet Quentin Anciaux will see spin up when the electron is measured will
win the
have guessed determinism
and chance were difficult to marry...
Then you're refuting MWI as not being able to correctly renders the
probabilities, right?
Is measuring spin up under MWI has a probability of one or 0.5 under MWI?
Quentin
Subject: Re: A riddle
the
Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it
doesn't exist.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200
Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark
From: allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Le 23 juil. 2015 05:09, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by
pretending it doesn't exist.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200
Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark
From: allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Le 23 juil. 2015 05:09, chris peck
are not betting on
a flicked coin you are placing bets on red and black and then spinning a
roulette wheel.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:02:58 -0400
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results
Yes, provided that you means somebody who remembers being
Quentin Anciaux
at this instant. MWI says everything that doesn't violate the laws of
On 22 Jul 2015, at 03:18, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they
would not be exclusive by definition .
I agree that it all depends on definitions, in this case the
definition
On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my
computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or the other.
You will need a long neck to attend a conference in Moscow, and a
party in
On 22 Jul 2015, at 00:02, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a
first person experience.
They can if the first person experience has been duplicated
because that's what the word
and black) = 0.
Bruno
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:02:58 -0400
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot
Le 22 juil. 2015 22:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results
Yes, provided that you means somebody who remembers being
So you're claiming
: Re: A riddle for John Clark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
From: meeke...@verizon.net
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:25:00 -0700
On 7/22/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
So you're claiming that the probability of seeing spin up while doing a
measurement of the spin is one (likewise seeing spin down) right?
That is neither right nor wrong because it is not clear what the
probability refers
On 7/22/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog
- just by attending to one or the other.
You will need a long neck to
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be
exclusive by definition .
I agree that it all depends on definitions, in this case the definition of
I. If the definition of I is somebody who
On 7/21/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jul 2015, at 00:05, chris peck wrote:
the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his experiences, and thus his experience content, which
can only be seeing one city among W and M, i.e. W or M.
nah. he can expect to have
On 21 Jul 2015, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/21/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jul 2015, at 00:05, chris peck wrote:
the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation
of his experiences, and thus his experience content, which can
only be seeing one city among W
On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog -
just by attending to one or the other.
You will need a long neck to attend a conference in Moscow, and a party in Washington.
You can use a tele-vision system,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person
experience.
They can if the first person experience has
been duplicated because that's what the word duplicated means.
But of course ICT1PWT3P,
: A riddle for John Clark
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person
experience.
They can if the first person experience has been duplicated
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:05:48 +0200
On 20 Jul 2015, at 01:17, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The probability of he (or anyone, actually
On 20 Jul 2015, at 01:17, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The probability of he (or anyone, actually) *experiencing*
one and only one city is one.
If you want that statement to be true then he can't mean
somebody who remembers being a
to
this situation in Helsinki he WILL expect to have both experiences. And he will
be right.
Consequently, P(W || M) = 1. P(W M) = 1.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:05:48 +0200
On 20 Jul 2015, at 01:17
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:05:48 +0200
On 20 Jul 2015, at 01:17, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
T
he probability of he (or anyone
On 18 Jul 2015, at 18:54, John Clark wrote:
And if he means a being who remembers being a man in Helsinki,
and Bruno Marchal has said more than once that is what is meant,
then the probability of he experiencing one and only one city
is zero.
The probability of he (or anyone,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
T
he probability of he (or anyone, actually) **experiencing** one and only
one city is *one*.
If you want that statement to be true then he can't mean somebody who
remembers being a man in Helsinki, you're going to have to
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I said it before I'll say it again, when talking about the future in a
world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing as *THE*
first person experience
, there is only *A* first person experience;
On 16 Jul 2015, at 21:48, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
chris peck wrote: There is no contradiction here as Clark
has pointed out with excruciating and what must amount to inhuman
patience over many many years. Neither
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:34:18 +0200
On 15 Jul 2015, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
one place plus one place equals two places.
But a place is a 3p notion.
I is 1p
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
chris peck wrote:
There is no contradiction here as Clark has pointed out with excruciating
and what must amount to inhuman patience over many many years. Neither
duplicate would conclude that P(W M) was 0 for their
or even no pee pee.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:34:18 +0200
On 15 Jul 2015, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
one place plus one place
On 14 Jul 2015, at 19:33, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
when the Helsinki guy is in the two cities, BOTH feels to be
in once place.
Yes, and one place plus one place equals two places.
But a place is a 3p notion.
One first person
On 15 Jul 2015, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
one place plus one place equals two places.
But a place is a 3p notion.
I is 1p and I have a notion of place.
Actually this contradicts your statement that
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
one place plus
one place equals two places.
But a place is a 3p notion.
I is 1p
and I have a notion of place.
For the M-guy, the presence or absence of the W guy will not change
anything in its
On 14 Jul 2015, at 03:19, John Clark wrote:
you just said BOTH the W-guy AND the M-guy are the H-guy.
Yes, but after the split, they *FEEL* to be only one of them.
That is irrelevant if they both are the H-guy, and you just said
they are;
It is relevant because the question is
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
when the Helsinki guy is in the two cities, BOTH feels to be in once place.
Yes, and one place plus
one place equals two places.
You interpret like if we were asking where the first person experience are
from a third
On 12 Jul 2015, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You know in Helsinki with certainty (accepting comp
But I do not accept “comp”.
You do accept comp by definition of comp. You might believe there is a
flaw in comp =
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But I do not accept “comp”.
You do accept comp by definition of comp.
Comp has a definition?? That's news to me, it's certainly not in any
dictionary and from your usage I gathered it was just a sequence of ASCII
characters that
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's about continuity of consciousness above all else, and the labels
change nothing about that.
Labels
are what gives meanings
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You know in Helsinki with certainty (accepting comp
But I do not accept “comp”.
I don't see any problem. Just play with words.
Logic is playing with symbols according to certain rules, and words are
symbols.
is
On 10 Jul 2015, at 20:21, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns
comes so easily that Bruno doesn't even seem to realize that Bruno
is using them; it's like breathing, thought
On 10 Jul 2015, at 23:12, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:41 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's call them Helsinki Man, Helsinki-To-Moscow Man, and
Helsinki-To-Washington
On 11 Jul 2015, at 19:34, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
there is no problem with the pronouns when you understand and
apply the 1p and 3p distinction.
The problem is that there is no such thing as *THE* 1p, there
is only
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
there is no problem with the pronouns when you understand and apply the 1p
and 3p distinction.
The problem is that there is no such thing as *THE* 1p, there is only
*A* 1p. Another problem is that it is never
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's about continuity of consciousness above all else, and the labels
change nothing about that.
Labels
are what gives meanings to words and all the arguments
you have made on this list are made of words,
On 09 Jul 2015, at 21:25, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that guy in Helsinki was able to predict that wherever he
will survive he will feel unique, in []
He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so
easily that
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so easily
that Bruno doesn't even seem to realize that Bruno is using them;
it's like breathing, thought is required for neither activity.
The
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged
.
Let's assume you're correct, then if the
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
All I want is to understand what you meant
by
they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged
, and to do that all I really need is to understand exactly what you
mean by The Helsinki Man. I
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
All I want is to understand what you meant
by
they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged
, and to do that all I
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's call them Helsinki Man, Helsinki-To-Moscow Man, and
Helsinki-To-Washington Man.
That's quite a mouthful but OK. So the answer to the question what city
will the Helsinki Man With No Hyphen see? is The
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:41 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's call them Helsinki Man, Helsinki-To-Moscow Man, and
Helsinki-To-Washington Man.
That's quite a mouthful but OK. So the answer
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I see only your usual rhetorical tricks
Those rhetorical tricks have another name, it's an
obscure technical term called logic. Perhaps you've heard of it.
Just answer this. I recall that W means I feel to be in W, and I
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:47 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged.
Let's assume you're correct, then if the referent of the personal pronoun
On 08 Jul 2015, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Nonsense. I can show you the diaries proving that the
Helsinki Man did write I see Moscow AND did write I see
Washington.
Yes, but (I see Moscow) and (I see Washington)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged
.
Let's assume you're correct, then if the referent of the personal pronoun
you in the question what city will you see? is
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that guy in Helsinki was able to predict that wherever he will survive he
will feel unique, in []
He, he and he! The use of ambiguous personal pronouns comes so easily that
Bruno doesn't even seem to realize that Bruno is
On 09 Jul 2015, at 17:56, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Just answer this. I recall that W means I feel to be in W,
and I feel to be in M, with the I being the first person I,
To hell with THE! If a person has been duplicated then
On 08 Jul 2015, at 03:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote
On 07 Jul 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
If there's only
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
they're not Helsinki man anymore. They both were, but then they diverged.
Let's assume you're correct, then if the referent of the personal pronoun
you in the question what city will you see? is the Helsinki man (and I
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Nonsense. I can show you the diaries proving that the Helsinki Man did
write I see Moscow AND did write I see Washington.
Yes, but
(I see Moscow) and (I see Washington)
describes two different, and exclusive,
On 08 Jul 2015, at 03:16, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that's a pretty dull thought experiment. if everything in
the universe will get a cup of coffee then it doesn't matter what
the referent to you is because whatever it is he she or
On 07 Jul 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
If there's only one consciousness which is aware of both
Washington and Moscow
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
But they're not Helsinki man anymore.
Yes they are
provided the Helsinki man is defined as somebody who remembers being
T
erren Suydam
in Helsinki, and that's the definition we'd use if
On 06 Jul 2015, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You (or anyone) are in Helsinki, you will be duplicated,
and both copies will get a cup of coffee in W and in M. The
question is asked to you (or to anyone doing that
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that's a pretty dull thought experiment. if everything in the universe
will get a cup of coffee then it doesn't matter what the referent to you
is because whatever it is he she or it will get some coffee. What's your
point?
Bruno Marchal wrote
On 07 Jul 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If there's only one consciousness which is aware of both
1 - 100 of 324 matches
Mail list logo
