From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 13:30:11 MDT
gts wrote:
> > I'm used to the idea that I
> > should try to keep me() alive, and I'm not at all used to the idea
> > that me[now] might die while me[past]
> > might live. I want them both to live, I guess...
>
> In our example there are two instantiations of me[past]! One of them is
> a subset of me in the frozen state and one is a subset of me in the
> active state in which I'm pondering the vaporization questions. I can
> eliminate either instantiation of me[past] without eliminating me[past]
> or me[now].
Can you? Presume N=2, and you're #2. You can eliminate #1, in which
case, one instantiation of me[past] is gone, but me[now]() is still
around, and me[past]() is still around.
But you can't eliminate #2 without eliminating me[now], right? So it's
not the case that you can eliminate either instantiation of me[past]
without eliminating [...] me[now]...?
(This is just to clarify that we're using the formalism the same way, not
because I think you've made a mistake.)
> Me[past] dies only if the frozen person and I both die. Me[now] dies
> only if I die.
Something like that... still, we seem to disagree on whether "I" can refer
to something in the past at all.
> > If you want to reject this notion, you'll have to give some
> > kind account of why I would pay more attention to one or the other:
> > why I'd pay attention to me[now]() over me[past](), *or vice versa*.
> >
> > Certainly, if you think that me[now]() is the only
> > interesting property, [perhaps because "I" is automatically present
> tense?]
>
> Yes, that is exactly why me[now] is the only interesting property. I am
> not who I was at that time in the past at which that rascal Lee Corbin
> xoxed me and zapped my duplicate with a freeze gun. I am who I am at
> this present moment.
This is false, if taken literally.
You *are* the same person you were when you were six years old. This
isn't to say that you aren't *also* the person you are now, but, come on,
you're also the person you were yesterday.
Your claim seems so odd that I fear I must have misunderstood it... Have
I?
If "I" is automatically present tense, what are we to make of 1st person
claims in the past tense? "I was hungry" must be a grammatical error...?
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:35 MST