On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is a >>> 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man because the >>> Helsinki Man saw Moscow, and a 100% chance the Helsinki Man will turn into >>> the Washington Man because the Helsinki Man saw Washington, and a 100% >>> chance that the first person view of the Helsinki Man will be a view ONLY >>> of Helsinki because otherwise the first person view of the Helsinki Man >>> would not be the first person view of the Helsinki man. >>> >> >> > This is uncontraversially, one might say trivially correct, >> > > I would have thought so too, but however trivial it may be for reasons I > don't understand most on this list are unable to grasp this simple truth. > > > but it doesn't refute anything about the first person indeterminacy, >> > > I don't know what indeterminacy you're talking about. LizR may not be able > to predict what LizR sees next, but as far as personal identity is > concerned that is irrelevant because whatever LizR sees LizR will still > feel like LizR. > > You were kind enough to let the list know, along with Chris Peck, that the flaw in the reasoning concerning step 3 of the UDA is "it sucks". Unless you guys backtrack and quit abusing the fact that Bruno's politeness and dedication to critical debate puts him in default mode of taking your points seriously and granting you the benefit of the doubt that you would not in the faintest be inclined to grant in return, these discussions are a one way street into brick walls with "you suck" infantile graffiti sprayed on them at the end. So unless you can state something more substantial than teenage insults and ruses รก la "I don't understand THIS AND THAT!!!" or the more passive but nonetheless authoritative "you're confusing first/third person, everything is first person" etc. , I submit you guys are trolling and wasting time on this. Either be open for genuine discussion and finding of flaws or this is pointless as it does a disservice to the readers of this list. It is not difficult to see that refuting computationalism in this form, would be a major result. Your aspirations are lofty gentlemen, but they don't jibe with the infantilization and the mockery masking itself as poised discourse and clear debate. PGC 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
