From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 13:24:53 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net>
> >it would, as I said, only be a copy
>
> When you're talking about something in a constant state of flux the entire
> concept of "The Original" becomes meaningless. What is "The Original"
> Mississippi River?
"The Original" is a reference to the accumulated movement of a -particular-
pattern through time (i.e. complex adaptive system #1: the human in
question.) It is not accurately represented by any one snapshot in time- it
is, rather, the movement.
> > If I had to be destroyed in the process of creation, I would be
gone forever.
> > There would be no way of verifying this from an outsider's point of
view,
>
> True, but there no way of verifying this from an insiders point of view
either.
Only because you've killed the insider. A fine solution.
> You can't prove to me or even to yourself that you are not a copy made 60
> seconds ago. And it wouldn't matter one bit if you were, not to me and not
to
> you, the reason is that you don't have thoughts, you are thoughts, so if
> something is thinking your thoughts then that "thing" is you.
Sure, it doesn't matter to any extant observer-- but (if it were I) given
that we have destroyer the observer that I am necessarily most concerned
about (me,) it ain't exactly a procedure that I'm particularly thrilled
about. My particular pattern does not have a contiguous experience-- and
frankly, I couldn't care less (literally: couldn't) if my identical copy is
happy with how things turned out.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:12 MST