The bickering levels reach a fever pitch and the two teams haven't even reached consensus concerning their status as teams at all in the first place. Then there are the heretics that question not only the match but game theory as well.
But the drug is too hard to resist: to bicker... once more... and preside over the top of the list, reigning supreme defender of one's own biases over the biases of all other petty bickerers! Pure power. Pure status for pure text served straight by valiant knights selflessly dropping knowledge manna from heavens of surveillance. Sex for people deprived of the same. In general philosophically naive? Well I guess the fuckin gloves are off then because now the matter hits the fan. No turning back. Cleanup is for chumps that are addicted to WHATEVER it was that hit the fan, while we do require the nuance that Plato didn't have toilet papyrus or a pedophile fountain handy at all times. So naive then, huh? What a tangled web those weave calling their children naive for taking what others post on the internet literally. What? You believe in posts of the interwebs? And you're calling people naive for posting them through posting another post in the midst of their posts? Delicious. We want more! Therefore bickereth forth brave souls; the savior may actually emerge from this mess with a point, publish it here as a universal scientific contribution, and there'll be infinite glory and status for all list members. And zombie virgins and strawberry ice cream too. Physicalism, Materialism, Computationalism, Ismismismism... the winner is who farts and invokes the mythomagical linguistic hallucinatory spell of freedom from the fundamental law of digital bickering: "I have to go." with the slick implication that I am too popular for my own shmatter. Too many friends and too much divine work, better places and stuff, you see? Place needs more seriousness- no space for weekend nominalists. PGC On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 15/07/2016 8:31 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> 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: >>> >>> >>> 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. >> > > It is easy to dismiss the move to platonia at any time. Confusing 1p and > 3p is not relevant here. > > 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). >> > > Materialism or physicalism? I don't think I am trying to defend the idea > that matter excludes the mental. Besides, where is the self-contradiction > in materialism (or physicalism)? > > 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. >> > > If you propose the UD in platonia and derive physics from computations > through conscious persons, the "contradictions of materialism", if there > are such, become irrelevant. > > 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!" >> > > People on this list seem to be very quick to interpret a lack of > philosophical insight into anything (theories of personal identity here) as > an ad hominem, whereas it is often a simple statement of fact. Bruno > himself is always criticizing his critics for a lack of understanding of > modal logics and computer science. I find the commenters on this list to > be, in general, philosophically naive. > > The theory of personal identity behind the duplication protocols is not > clearly spelled out, but it is basically a psychological theory, that > places heavy emphasis on personal memories, though no doubt does give some > import to things like character, values, beliefs, desires, intentions and > so forth. There are several alternative theories of personal identity, none > is without some problems, but I think that the closest continuer theory > comes closest to surmounting the obstacles. > > Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/haloUTgJfiQ/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
