On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > > what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND >> PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. >> > > >The question is what do you [blah blah] > DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. > You = the unique 1p owner of your personal memory in Helsinki > Then after the button has been pushed and the personal memory in Helsinki is not unique anymore who is the "p" in the "1p" ? And why 1, what is so one-ish about it? >>> In Helsinki you know that P(my experience will be the experience of >>> seeing a unique city) = 1. >> >> > >> Who is Mr. my? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR >> REFERENT. >> > > > The unique 1p owner of your [blah blah] > DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. Is Mr. p blah or blah? > By comp we know that [blah blah] > Well good for "comp". >>> the question asked was about his first person experience, >>> >> >> >> Who is Mr. his, and who exactly is the person having this "first >> person experience"? Be specific, give names, and DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS >> WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT. >> > > > The question is asked to John-Clark with diary H, before the pushing on > the button. >> Who is Mr. you? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR >> REFERENT >> > > T>he owner of the H diary, before he pushes on the button If the owner of the diary, a certain Mr. he, is John Clark then the correct prediction would be that Mr. he will see both Washington AND Moscow. However if Mr. he is the fellow who is experiencing Helsinki right now then the correct prediction would be Mr. he will see neither Washington NOR Moscow. But of course none of this really matters because predictions, good bad or indifferent, have nothing to do with identity and the feeling of self. > Well comp implies [blah blah] > Well good for "comp". > > Please go to step 4. > Why? Because the first 3 steps were so free of ambiguity? The entire point of including strange but physically possible machines like duplicating chambers in a thought experiment is that it forces (or at least it should force) Bruno Marchal and John Clark to reexamine concepts that in a world without such machines seem so self evidently true that they're not worth thinking about. But even in these bizarre circumstances Bruno Marchal continues to use pronouns in exactly the same way that Bruno Marchal does in the everyday world when Bruno Marchal orders a pizza. Duplicating chambers are not everyday things and thus everyday language is not good enough in a world that contains them; if the referent to personal pronouns was always unambiguous then the thought experiment itself would be unnecessary because the point it was trying to make would already be clear. 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.
