-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
>Isn't it impossible for both copies to choose a wall, choose a
>direction to move the table toward the wall, and have their choices
>be the same?
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. It all depends on the angular orientation you decided to put the two copies into when you made them in the round duplicating chamber, or at least the angular orientation of their sense organs. Trying to derive identity from angular orientation will not get you any further than you previous attempt to do it with linear orientation, position is just a non starter.
>You invented this mark as being required for my objection, then you
>argued against this mark as being invalid.
I'm a neutral, I am a member of neither the pro nor the anti mark on wall faction, I just pointed out the consequences of both.
I fear this is starting to degenerate into a heated argument over room design and interior decorating, to try to prevent that 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.
John K Clark email@example.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----