On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 15/07/2016 11:03 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 7/14/2016 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 15/07/2016 9:42 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > I printed the following "Duplicate Questionnaire" and gave one to both > John-Washington, and John-Moscow. The questionnaires each had 8 questions: > > 1. What city did you last recall being in? > 2. How many cities do you see now? > 3. What is the name of the city you see before you? > 4. True/False: You see two cities right now: > 5. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington was: > 6. True/False: The prediction that you see Moscow was: > 7. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington and Moscow was: > 8. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington or Moscow was: > > When I gave the questionnaire to John-Washington, he filled out the > following answers (in bold): > > 1. What city did you last recall being in? Helsinki > 2. How many cities do you see now? One > 3. What is the name of the city you see before you? Washington > 4. True/False: You see two cities right now: False > 5. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington was: True > 6. True/False: The prediction that you see Moscow was: False > 7. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington and Moscow was: False > 8. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington or Moscow was: True > > When I gave the questionnaire to John-Moscow, he filled out the following > answers (in bold): > > 1. What city did you last recall being in? Helsinki > 2. How many cities do you see now? One > 3. What is the name of the city you see before you? Moscow > 4. True/False: You see two cities right now: False > 5. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington was: False > 6. True/False: The prediction that you see Moscow was: True > 7. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington and Moscow was: False > 8. True/False: The prediction that you see Washington or Moscow was: True > > Both Johns expressed deep regret over insulting people on the Everything > list, most especially Bruno. It turned out neither John-Washington's, nor > John-Moscow's prediction that they would see both cities was true from their > own first person points of view. > > > But you have introduced a distinction between John-W and John-M that is not > present in the original protocol. Remember that the criterion of personal > identity you are working with is based on person memories (verified by a > personal diary if necessary). Both copies of John have these memories and > these diaries, so they both have equal claims to be John. "John", as this > duplicated person, predicts with certainty that he will see W, and that he > will see M, so he predicts that he will see both cities. > > The fact that this appears odd is that our conventional intuition is > essentially dualist -- we think that there is a central core that is the > "real me" that gives me my continuing sense of personal identity. This > intuition breaks down when you have duplication of persons. > > > Although I think JKC has a point about pronouns, I don't see what it has to > do with Bruno's theory. He just proposes this as an illustration of > first-person-indetermancy as implicit in Everett's interpretation of QM. > It has problems with probability, but so does Everett's QM - what does > probability refer to when everything happens. The question of which JKC > just gets mapped to which world. > > > Exactly. I have made this point before. The first six or seven steps of > Bruno's argument are not really necessary. It is only when he moves the > Universal Dovetailer into platonia in step 8 that anything new actually > happens.
I don't think the argument would pack the same punch without the previous steps. It's easy to dismiss the move to platonia without them. With them it is not so easy -- unless you resort to linguistic tricks like confusing 1p and 3p on purpose. > He could have started there and argued for the reversal of physics > and computationalism directly. The duplication of persons is just a > distracting irrelevance to the main argument, The duplication machines are an excellent device to expose materialist self-contraditions (if you do not assume dualism). I don't see how these contradictions would be exposed by outright proposing the move to platonia. This feels like an attempt to "put Bruno in his place" by forcing him to defang his argument. > and depends so heavily on a > particular theory of personal identity as to be essentially useless. Would you mind restating Bruno's theory of personal identity in your own words (so that we can agree that we are on the same page) and the present a conflicting theory? I think this is the way forward. Otherwise it's just subtle ad hominen: "you are ignorant about the topic of personal identity!" Telmo. > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
