From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 23:11:40 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
>
Having been of the same stance as Damien on this one, I've recently changed
my view. I now think all of the vaguely consistent viewpoints are correct.
Basically, I think that whatever you believe is probably how it is for you.
After all, we are talking about subjective phenomena here.
For instance, when those in the xox-is-me camp are replicated, how are they
going to feel about it? The "original" will think "I am me, and so is the
other guy". The copy is going to think "I am me, and so is the other guy".
If one of them is to be disintegrated (say the "original"), then he's going
to be ok about it, because "that guy over there is also 'me'", unless he has
a sudden change of heart. He wont expect to *feel* like "that guy over there
is 'me'" because he "knows" it doesn't work that way.
On the other hand, if you believe that the copy is not you, then, on xoxing,
the original is going to say "See, I'm still here, don't point that thing at
me." The Xox will say "Wow, that feels like I just teleported from that
table to this one, but then it would, wouldn't it? Don't zap that guy, he's
the original. Don't zap me either, I'm valid even if I'm a copy."
I guess I'm saying that identity is constructed by the identified. On the
subject of identity and duplicates, believe what you will and it is so.
Emlyn
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:28 MST