John K Clark <johnkc@well.com> wrote:
> I don't if I'm pleased that you understand, or
> infuriated by the fact that I've been saying the
> exact same thing all this time!
No you haven't. You said that the walls were the same, when you really meant that they look similar to the two participants. You waid that nobody could prove the walls different, when you really meant that the two participants in the example would be prevented access to the tools to do so. You said that consciousness does not reside in the brain, when what you really meant is that it doesn't have to remain in the brain. You said that consciousness does not reside in any location, when what you really meant is that consciousness is not limited to a single location. Every time someone proved you wrong, you clarified your position to be different from what you originally wrote.
John K Clark <johnkc@well.com> wrote:
>
> > They will therefore diverge in thought, deed,
> > or experience. The two people will think
> > differently, act differently, or experience
> > differently. They cannot remain identical.
>
> So if we've established that they will not diverge
> in thought, deed, or experience, can they act as
> redundancy?
>
Read my statement more carefully. Your response is a non sequitur. I am not the one who is miscommunicating here!
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto:harv@gate.net> Author, Engineer, Entrepreneur, <http://www.gate.net/~harv> Consultant, Researcher, Scientist. <ldap://certserver.pgp.com>