From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2001 - 08:11:47 MST
From: Lee Daniel Crocker [mailto:lee@piclab.com]
"All of the thought experiments suggested in these arguments are interesting
setups, but again they just ask the wrong question at
the end. The question is not, given some bizzare scenario, which of the
physical things or processes involved is "me". That's
just a matter of which definition you pick."
I disagree, the most important question, at least to me, is can I have
subjective immortality. To answer that question, we merely look at basic
scientific principles, and they say that the simplest explanation is that if
you destroy the original housing of the conciouss pattern than you destroy
that subjective continuity. It is the simplest explanation for observed
phenomena.
"It doesn't matter to me which one I call "me", what matters is what actual
consequences will this action have on the world, are they likely to happen
in the future, and which of them are good and bad?"
The question then, to ask yourself, is if there were some 'magical' way to
ensure continuity of conciousness, would you prefer that over a way that did
not guarantee continuity of conciouss, but instead said 'were not sure, some
people think ya, some people think no' and made copies of you. The rest of
the world would still enjoy your company, but would *you* be around to
experience it?
I think, given the choice, most rational people would opt for something that
gurantees subjective immortality over something that was questionable about
it.
It doesnt really matter to me which one would be called 'me' since they are
both sentient beings, what matters is that *one* of them experienced
subjective immortality
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:30 MST