On 06 Aug 2012, at 16:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/6/2012 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.
Why?
Otherwise he is identifiable only by description and then there is
no uncertainty about Bruno-in-Helsinki becoming Bruno-in-Washington
or Bruno-in-Moscow; they are all uniquely identified only by
description. That was the whole crux of your argument with John
Clark.
In that protocol they get two names after the experience, so the first
person remains unameable. By construction they have a definite name,
assuming the doctor has chosen the right level. The name is what has
be scanned. The indeterminacy is that such a name can be copied,
making the person indeterminate on its future immediate experience.
John Clark just inconsistently define his future personal experience
by the linear conjunction of the two (yet incompatible) first person
experiences, which directly contradict the statement in the diaries,
on which the indeterminacy bear.
The first person has no name, but it can get one when some other
person give him one relative name (like the W-man or the M-man, or
their bodies description at the right comp level).
And the ONE (arithmetical truth, in the translation of plotinus in
arithmetic) has no description at all, no name, but I would not deduce
from that that it is not a person. I don't think personally, today,
that it is a person, but I can hardly be sure.
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.
