Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 04:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
In Bruno's "COMP 2013" paper he says
The notion of the first person, or the conscious knower, admits the
simplest possible definition: it is provided by access to basic
memories. Consciousness, despite its non-definability, facilitates
the train of reasoning in humans; but we justifiably might have used
digital machines instead.
Given this, in my opinion there is no problem with what is meant by
step 3. Bruno makes no attempt to define personal identity beyond the
contents of memories. Whether one "really" survives being teleported,
or falling asleep and waking up the next day, isn't relevant. "Moscow
man" is just the guy who remembers being Helsinki man, then finding
himself in Moscow (for example). Hence Helsinki man can't predict any
first person experience, only what will happen from a 3p view. Or if
he didn't know duplication was involved, he would assume that he had
a 50-50 chance of ending up in M or W.
But this is a rather self-serving definition -- designed to fit in
with the conclusion he wants to draw. We are entering the realm of the
Humpty-Dumpty dictionary -- words no longer have their ordinary,
everyday meaning.
In science, all popular terms are redefined. This is just clarification.
You could attack Einstein and say that he refines terms to suit his
conclusion. You can pretend that those mad people who pretend that the
earth is round have just redefined the meaning of earth. It is a
universal critics bearing on the whole of science.
At some point you need to relate the terms of your theories to the real
everyday world. If your theory relies on some particular definition of
personal identity, then you have to show that this definition means that
your are talking about real, ordinary, everyday people. If your terms do
not relate, then your theory has no content.
Einstein, through his theories, changed our understanding of the nature
of space and time. But he did this in terms of common, well understood
concepts such as clocks and measuring rods. If he had redefined the
basic concept of measurement, then people would certainly have asked him
what he was talking about. Science does not work by definition.
Sometimes technical terms are required, and these need to be defined,
but unless such terms are ultimately related to standard concepts, then
there is no evidence that the theory has anything to do with the real
world. In science, of course, the ultimate test is always observation --
a successful theory has to accord with observation, when it is usually
the case that technical terms are of secondary importance. The abstract
theory of today is taught in high school in a few years time.
You must take the definition given, and study the proof, that's all. if
not, you are the one using argument of popularity which are
authoritative argument, and are non valid.
No, it is not an argument from authority. That is an unreasonable
accusation. What I am requiring is that the terms you use, like the
concept of personal identity, are related to the meaning such terms have
in the real world. If you are not talking about real people, then it is
difficult to see any merit in the theory.
Bruce
--
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.
