On 14 March 2012 18:32, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > He uses also bad rhetorical tricks by > attributing me intention, and seems even aggressive sometimes, or is it an > impression?
Vous êtes ironique, je l'espère! David > > On 14 Mar 2012, at 07:57, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi, > > > 2012/3/14 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >>> > I define the guy in Helsinki by whoever he believes he is, in Helsinki. >>> > I don't need to "define" who he is, >> >> >> Yes you do! You are asking me for probabilities but before I can do that I >> need to know what you're talking about, I need to know whose probability you >> want. That's the problem with all your thought experiments, you set up these >> elaborate one act plays and then ask what "I" will experience after numerous >> duplications and complications as if we can throw around that pronoun with >> the same ease we do in normal conversations that do not involve exotic >> duplicating chambers. You've got to be far more careful in philosophical >> conversations involving the nature of identity, but if your question is well >> stated and you are clear about who "I" is then the probabilities always >> reduce to 0% or 100% in all your first person determinacy stuff, plus >> regular old indeterminacy of course. For example, you asked me what the >> probability is that the Helsinki guy, that's the guy who gets no tea, will >> get tea, and I can say without fear of contradiction that the probability >> the guy who gets no tea will get tea is zero. I know this isn't very deep >> but at least it's true. >> >> >>> >So, if I throw a dice, the probability that I will see a six is zero, >>> > because the guy who threw the dice is not the same as the guy who looked >>> > on >>> > which face it landed up? >> >> >> It has nothing to do with who threw the dice, the problem is that before >> probability can be used it must be clear who "I" is, If you define "I" in a >> way similar with what you did with the tea business and "I" is the guy who >> did NOT get a 6 when the dice was rolled then the probability this person >> named "I" will get a 6 is indeed zero. And there is not a speck of >> indeterminacy in that. >> >> John K Clark > > > > Well so it's clear you're dead by now while I'm reading this email... it's > sad. If you want to absolutely be right, that's what it means. What you're > telling is that a question like "what is the probabilty that events happens > to me in one second ?" is not a legitimate question, because me does not > exists... ok, but that position is "don't ask" and it's quite not > interresting and useful. > > > Don't worry too much, Quentin, I thing John Clark will survive. I think he > is just inconsistent, which indeed is practically equivalent with death, for > the self-referentially correct machine. > > And I agree with you, he is telling us that we die at each instant (which I > think is comp-true, but irrelevant for the probability which abstract from > the cul-de-sac, and that is what "Bp & Dt" will capture later). > > But we can bet he is just not self-referentially correct. > > What is the problem? > > For some reason, he does not put himself at the place of the other John > Clarks. The "I" notion he want a definition of, is that "I". It is the other > "I" you grasp by not just attributing a mind to someone else, but the one > that you try to imagine by putting yourself at his place. > > John Clark has already acknowledged the difficulty he has to do that for a > bat, like Nagel is asking, and I can understand that, but here, the effort > should not be that big, given that it concerns other John Clarks, with the > same past memories and character and personality. > > If he does that effort, he should understand, son or later, that the guy in > Moscow will understand that he could not have been sure, in Helsinki, to > become the guy in Washington, and vice versa. And so he might be more > cautious about 0 and 100% in the next try. > > He clearly seems able to do that thinking, but for unknown reason feels > manifestly bad to acknowledge the step. He might be anxious for the future > of Aristotle metaphysics, I dunno. He uses also bad rhetorical tricks by > attributing me intention, and seems even aggressive sometimes, or is it an > impression? > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
