From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 20:39:54 MDT
Lee -
When I read this, I was almost sure you were playing devil's advocate,
playing out a stream of thought that seems logical within it's limited
context, but one that wouldn't be very useful in the context of the world we
live in. I thought you must be arguing this viewpoint either for the
pleasure of constructing it, or the fun of see what reaction it would bring.
I was certain you must have been playing with word meanings and the
ambiguity we have when we talk about ourselves past, present, and future as
if there's no difference.
I was surprised, once again, to find that I have apparently misjudged your
intent. I find the same ideas, in more expanded form, in an essay you wrote
at http://www.quantium.cwc.net/lr80.htm so I must conclude that you were
serious and sincere in what you wrote.
One of the reasons I continue to subscribe to this list is that it continues
to surprise me.
- Jef
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Dan Fabulich has written a fabulous account of the identity paradox.
>Now if we
> were very used to duplicates being around, I predict that
> over time we'd accommodate the perspective from physics,
> namely, there isn't much difference between someone and
> his duplicate. The whole difference is in a few memories,
> and we forget things all the time. Besides, since I'll
> be the same person next month, I can hardly fail (from the
> point of view of physics) to be the same person as my xox.
>
> So since you have realized that your "moral intuitions" aren't
> founded on anything objective, you *can* decide that duplicates
> are self because that's what a completely physical materialistic
> analysis would suggest.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:34 MST