On 16 Apr 2015, at 14:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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.
Sure. Can you tell me specifically where you have a problem with?
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.
No problem. That is why I use diaries to axiomatize a part of the
meaining of the first and third person notion used in the reasoning. I
have never had any problem with this, except John Calrk, who shows
that he understand, but that he will not read step 4 anyway.
What is is that is unclear?
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.
tell me specifically what you don't understand. Study the work, step
by step/ be careful with the post. In some post I talk to people
having already grasped UDA1-7, in other even with people having a good
idea of Step 8, etc.
Avoid patronizing and avoid ad hominem remark. Focus on the subject.
Also, it is better to avoid an ontological commitment, and use only
the assumption used in the reasoning.
If you are not talking about real people, then it is difficult to
see any merit in the theory.
That's a total obvious remark which insinuate that I might not do
that. Please, make specific remark. At which step of the UDA do you
have a problem? I have still no clue.
Bruno
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.
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.
