On 07 Apr 2015, at 19:35, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John
Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man?
> We have agree that both the W-man and the M-man are the H-man.
Yes but you didn't answer my question and the answer is important
because relationships are not always symmetrical; a dog is always a
mammal but a mammal is not always a dog. The W-man and the M-man
encompass everything that the H-man was, however they both have
additional experiences that the H-man knows nothing about. So
although the W-Man and the M-man are the H-man, the H-man is not the
M-man, and the H-man is not the W-man, and the M-man is not the W-man.
> We're in Moscow now and John Clark The Moscow Man didn't write
that diary, John Clark The Helsinki Man did and John Clark Helsinki
Man no longer exists.
> We did agree on this.
Bullshit.
> You are changing your mind here
Bullshit.
> the W-man and the M-man do not feel to be the same person
That's because they are no longer the same person, they both
remember being the H-Man but after that they've had different
experiences and have different memories.
> it leads to the idea that personal identity is an illusion (which
I think),
And how would things be different if personal identity were not an
illusion?
> You don't believe in the christian God,
Yep
> and declare from this that all notion of God are "burp".
I am declaring that at least the Jesus freaks and Islamic
nincompoops are saying something, it's not correct but at least
they're saying something, and at least they have the courage of
their convictions and love the idea of God more than they love the
ASCII sequence G-O-D. But your "G-O-D" is just a spineless
unintelligent unconscious formless colorless blob of nothing in
particular that does nothing in particular except have a name.
Your Aristotelian intimate conviction should not be invoked in a
scientific debate. My GOD is the god of the Platonist. It has
influenced in diverse way the God of the Abramanic religion, but since
500 in the west, and 1000 in the east, the Aristotelian seems to have
succeed in brainwashing people that GOD is only the Aristotelian one.
The platonist and aristotelian God are particular case of the general
greek definition. It is close to some Indian and Chinese schools.
The question Creator/not-Creator hides the question Creation/not-
Creation.
> You illustrate only that you are taking *some* definition of free-
will, and of God, too much seriously.
People can defign free will however they want, but before they get
into a lengthy discussion about whether humans have free will or not
it would be wise to know what the hell the term is supposed to mean.
Unfortunately this NEVER happens
False, it did happen, and you have submit by your own an interesting
definition. I remember you fail to appreciate the interest, but your
argument that it was not an interesting was poorly convincing.
You are the one with the special word problem. You look like wanting
that they can't have any interesting meaning at all, but you use that
for not studying those who agrees on some definition, and reason from
that.
Take the word God. By defining it by the reason of your conscience, we
can say that every one self-conscious is already a believer in God,
and then the debate will be on the nature of God.
For an artistotelian God is Matter, because they think that Matter is
the primary reality from which our consciousness emerged. For a
Platonist, Matter might be the border of something, perhaps a
universal machine dream.
The God vocabulary is useful to homogenize the different religions-
Reality-conception be them aristotelian or not, which is impossible by
your way of talking.
It is useful also as making easier to distinguish the science of
physics, and physicalism, which are not related logically. It helps to
understand the difference between believing in a physical universe,
and believing that God is the physical universe, that is the reason of
my conscience.
There are no scientific evidence from that primariness.
And there is an evidence that it might not be: the kicking back of the
mathematical reality.
As the greeks noticed.
and so the result is that they very literally don't know what
they're talking about.
> the question was asked to the Helsinki-man, about what he expects.
As he does not expect to die
John Clark The Helsinki Man does not expect John Clark to die, but
John Clark The Helsinki Man does expect that John Clark The Helsinki
Man will die; or to say the same thing with different words, John
Clark expects to be just fine but does not expect to experience
Helsinki anymore.
Thanks for the news, but the question was about your expectation, and
your vocabulary makes unclear what you expect, when you are in Helsinki.
Suppose you are told in Helsinki that you will be offered a cup of
coffee at both reconstitution places. What is, in Helsinki, before the
duplication, your near future coffee drinking expectation?
I know that sounds clunky but as I've said when matter duplicating
machines become common the English language is going to need a major
overhaul, especially in its use of personal pronouns.
The simple idea (take explicitly the 1p and 3p difference into
account) works very well.
It is just a mystery why you avoid it, and then complain about
ambiguity.
You get worst and worst in faking not seeing the relevance of that
difference in our setting.
And the math is already done. The 3p view is given by the use of
Kleene's theorem, or the Dx = T(xx) trick and variants. And the 1p
view is given by linking the non-definable truth to it. And there is a
technic to study its logic, despite its non formal character.
For this you need to study more logic and computer science.
Just tell me what you write in he diary, in Helsinki, about the coffee
expectation, with this change of the step 3 protocol.
Bruno
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
