From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2001 - 23:55:32 MDT
John Clark wrote,
> > No matter how much I change, I am still me.
>
> Are you sure?
Yes.
> Was the two year old Harvey Newstrom you?
Yes. That was me 35 years ago.
> How about the two day old Harvey Newstrom?
Yes. That was me 37 years ago.
> How about the zygote Harvey Newstrom?
Yes. That was me 37-1/2 years ago.
> I don't think identity or survival is an all or nothing matter.
Is John K Clark your birth name? Why do you take the name of someone who
isn't you? Do you really believe that you are not John K Clark or those
baby pictures that your Mom keeps showing are not you?
It seems to be that your definition of self is too rigid if it does not
allow you to change. The definition of being alive includes growth and
change. It seems that according to your definition, only dead or frozen
people are themselves. This definition seems to be very nonstandard. It
also seems to be very unextropian and seems to work against future growth.
According to this definition, if we grow better somehow we stop being
ourselves.
Why not use a definition of self that says that we can transcend our current
state of humanity? Why invent a definition of self that denies that we can
ever grow better because then it won't be us?
Is this why you are so intent of scenarios where copies are exact down to
the last atom, and only appear in symmetrical rooms that are identical? Are
you really that sure that a single atom of change destroys your identity?
This definition seems to
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:55 MST