[extropy-chat] What should survive and why?.

[Lee Corbin]

John Clark had written

> Heartland... wrote:
> 
> > Just because I-now thinks I-before survived does not cause "I-before
> > survived" statement to be true.

and then John (understandably) criticized the statement (from the way
that he would naturally interpret those statements.  I offered a criticism
of both the way that the above was written, and I made the serious
error of using an unoriginal joke:

Slawomir responds:

> Lee:
>> One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully
>> to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that phrase.
>> But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known
>> as Slawomir the High Priest at time 1 believes that Slawomir the etc.
>> at time 0 survived, does not make it true".
> 
> That joke has gone stale a long time ago, don't you think? Actually, a good joke 
> has at least some truth in it. This one had none, as you know. Perhaps you don't.

My sincere apologies---and my even deeper apologies to the list for
a  bad attempt at levity that derailed serious thought on the part of my
discussion partner.

Please allow me to rephase:

One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully
to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that phrase.
But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known
and univerally recognized as Mr. X at time 1 believes that entity universally
recognized at time 0 survived, does not make it true".

Do you or do you not concede that this would have been clearer, and
would have very possibly prevented John Clark from misunderstanding you?

Lee