From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 03:02:33 MDT
gts writes
> But you fail to recognize that the following is also true:
>
> 2) The sensed differences between me and my duplicate 10 years after
> duplication would be large and roughly the same as the sensed
> differences between two identical twins at age 10.
No, I agree that that is completely true.
> If you recognize 2) as true then you'll understand that the comparative
> differences between dupes and originals is for all practical purposes no
> different from the comparative differences between identical siblings.
On the contrary! By duplicate---especially "close duplicate"---
I mean one made very, very recently. Recall my thought experiment
where a duplicate of you was made a few minutes ago and lays
encased in ice.
> You imagine a distinction between dupes and twins that does not exist,
> (apparently because you have a vested interest in supporting your
> nonsensical theory that one person can exist in two places
> simultaneously).
;-) Your resort to quasi-name calling (e.g., repeated references
to "nonsensical") only serve to illustrate that I'm getting to you!
I actually have a logical point of view here that cannot be
dismissed out of hand. A number of philosophers including
Derek Parfit, Mike Perry, Robin Hanson, and many others, probably
including Max More, agree with me here. If there is a flaw in
our view or views, it will take some work to unearth it.
Again, let me be blunt: the difference between dupes and
twins is a matter of *time*: the differences between twins
took *years* to create; the differences between the duplicates
that I'm talking about are on the order---in some of the most
interesting cases---of *seconds*.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:43 MST