John K Clark <email@example.com> wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Harvey Newstrom) On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 Wrote:
> >This is a straw-man. Your original example did not have this mark
> I think you're a little confused, this wall pointing table moving example was
> yours not mine. Personally I never cared for it much.
Yes, I created the pointing table moving example. *You* responded by postulating "only if there was a mark on the wall." Then you dismissed my objection because "if it did have such a mark then the room would no longer have cylindrical symmetry." I.E., *you* invented the part of my argument that you later refuted. This was the straw-man point.
> If they were standing side by side and not facing each other they might
> have an irresistible urge to grab the round table in the center of their
> symmetrical room and move it to their right.
But then they wouldn't be seeing the same thing. One would be on the left, while the other would be on the right. One would have to lead with the table, while the other would have to follow. They would know which one was the leader and which one was the follower. Their identities would diverge, by your definition. Again, the example does not prevent the divergence of perception that you require.
> let me concede for the fourth or fifth time that if the copies receive
> different information from their senses, for whatever reason, then there
> would indeed be two people not one in the room.
Yes, we agreed to that before the symmetrical room example. I believe that you asserted that the symmetrical room would prevent such divergence. I believe that I have shown that it does not. Are we now agreed on this latter point?
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto:email@example.com> Author, Engineer, Entrepreneur, <http://www.gate.net/~harv> Consultant, Researcher, Scientist. <ldap://certserver.pgp.com>