From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 22:33:55 MDT
At 09:03 PM 10/8/02 -0700, Robert wrote:
>"Why cannot one
>self-organizing collective be replaced with another self-organizing
>(or even a predesigned) collective?
>I cite -- "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck".
>Where is the proof that it isn't for all intents and purposes really
>and truly a "duck"?
>P.S. (Damien, I know if you read this you are squirming in your seat
>with that voice in the back of your head screaming "But its not me!".
This is such a simple issue, it takes no squirming or screaming to get it
right.
For other people who are not me (including my exact-as-of-xoxing-moment
emulation), my copied or constructed emulation is operationally my
equivalent. You can't tell, he can't tell. The world delights in the
presence of that duck.
For *me*, that damned duck might as well be somebody's mother. Sure isn't
*me*, I'm over here on the scanning stage, so take your disintegrator
raygun away from my head, it gives *me* no comfort that my emulation is out
there.
What's hard to understand about this distinction?
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:28 MST