From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Sat Jul 18 1998 - 14:09:38 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> This is getting too silly to continue. Are you
> claiming that the square room does not contain
> four walls because the walls are identical?
No, there are still four walls. You said that if
the two copies pointed left, they'd be pointing at
different walls. I am merely asking how you *know*
they are different walls. Considering their are
two people in the room and they both share
identical data. Since they are both pointing to
their left and seeing their copy point to
its right. Why is there a divergence?
As far as I can tell, you believe the walls have
an independent location. I am perhaps guilty of
"selectively editing [your] responses to eliminate
[your] objections" because I'm trying to establish
where our opinions differ. As I have noted time
and time again, I believe it is in our concepts of
location. I apologise if I can be accused of any
arrogance or dishonesty, this is certainly not
what I intending.
I had hoped the idea of the room would help
concrete the image of two identical entities
acting as redundancy. It works for me, but I am of
a biased viewpoint (as are you).
> A square contains only one side? A rectangle
> only contains two sides? An equilateral
> triangle has one side, while a symmetrical
> triangle has two sides and an asymmetrical
> triangle has three sides?
No, a square has four sides, a rectangle four, and
so on. In my thought experiment you simply cannot
distinguish between the identity and location of
the walls, and thus the copies will not diverge.
> You are the one with strange theories of
> location and identity.
So:
What makes the walls different in this test?
How can we tell they are different?
How do you know there are two different people?
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:22 MST