From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 14:55:29 MDT
Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote,
> This is disconcerting, since undermining the assumption that a progress
> is being made on a mailing list in the course of a discussion. This is
> particularly disconcerting in this case, because it can be
> formally stated, thus leaving zero space for interpretation.
You are right. It should/could be formally stated, but we have not. I
think that the real difference boils down to a preference instead of a
rigorous definition. When each person argues what is valid for
self-identity, they are actually describing what they value as important to
save. Different people value different things and have different goals.
One person thinks that propagating their DNA is immortality. Another think
propagating their memes is immortality. Another wants to preserve their
continuity.
I think these people can and do formally agree on each argument or
statement. The disagreement is whether this "preserves identity", which I
think really should be restated as "is this good enough for my personal
goals"? This latter question is not reducible or provable. It is a
personal preference. What one person says "works" another would say
"doesn't work." I think they can agree exactly on the procedure and the
results, they just disagree on how the human would react or self-identify
afterwards, and each participant is really discussing how they would react.
As separate individuals, we all describe different reactions.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:53 MST