From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 12:54:41 MDT
gts wrote:
> Yes indeed that is what he is saying. However his idea that his view
> "makes the most sense" certainly does not alone make his view the most
> sensible. As I see it either I am in Napa or else I am in Tijuana, and
> either I am drinking wine or else I am drinking beer.
>
> Please Jef, if you think you can see things as Lee sees them, try to
> answer my questions above in his terms in a way that "makes the most
> sense." I cannot attempt to do so without writing fantastic gibberish.
As I see it, and I really don't like speaking for others, but I'll try here
with the hope of cutting it short, is that Lee is asking you to consider
broadening your definition of self to see that the other person, for most
practical purposes, can be effectively considered to have the same
self-identity as you.
Once you accept that the copy can be considered to be effectively you,
recognized by your friends as you, and for most practical purposes, is the
same as you, with the exception of some different memories, then you can
logically say that "you" (as your identity can be defined) can exist in two
places at once. It's not implying some new interpretation of physics. It's
just a different understanding or definition of self identity.
In many ways this can be a useful way of looking at things, but personally,
I think this broadening of the definition of self obscures important
details. I think I understand Lee's key point, but it seems to me that it
would be more accurate and useful to refer to "that branch of me" over
there, than to IMO oversimplify it by saying that it's precisely me.
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:46 MST