From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 18:21:17 MDT
Hey folks, this discussion keeps twisting and turning without any apparent
increase in understanding. There are some useful concepts in the mix, but
it has become a seemingly endless debate on definitions of what we mean by a
copy of a person. I think people can actually agree on the various concepts,
but there's confusion arising because people are choosing to use a word
differently depending on their values and the point they're trying to make.
Lee is saying that for all practical purposes, a copy of someone should be
considered to be effectively the same person. He is saying that, in general,
differences are not significant, since we routinely think of ourselves as
the same person even after many years of differences have accumulated. This
viewpoint has interesting implications.
gts is saying that even the slightest difference between the original and
the copy means they're not the same, by definition, and the bigger the
difference, the greater the significance. This viewpoint has interesting
implications.
Please correct me if I'm wrong in my simplified assesment of the two views
but if basically correct, it might be very useful for the various parties to
agree on a common understanding of what the other means, and then proceed to
discuss the ramifications and value judgements that arise from the two
viewpoints.
It helps to acknowlede the other person's understanding, agree on some
common understanding, and then move on the differences where things get
truly interesting.
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:44 MST