From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@ricochet.net)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2001 - 08:03:32 MDT
Harvey Newstrom has also invented a new form of argumentation:
'proof by revulsion' He writes, at 04:08 PM 6/1/01,
>The point is not that the new copy is invalid, unconscious or wrong.
>The point is that the old copy is *also* still valid, conscious and
>"me". As such, the old copy does not want to be killed.
Even though you were replying to me, you failed to note that
I never said that old copy is invalid, or is not "me". Of
course it is! It didn't change its properties just because
a copy got made a million miles away!
>I am my own original, and I have a right to say don't kill me.
>How can anyone argue with that? How can anyone argue that
>shooting me in the head is suddenly OK just because of some
>new bioexperiment someone created somewhere else that looks
>a lot like me?
There are indeed some circumstances where you would (or
should) choose exactly that course for suitable reward.
But if everything else is the same, of course you are
right! Why should the "copy" of you that is the original
ever die?
Here you are agreeing with me and arguing against those
people who agree to die locally just because they've been
uploaded successfully. They don't seem to fathom that it's
better to be alive in two places than one, provided only
that each life is worth living.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:54 MST