From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 23:04:36 MST
"Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com> Wrote:
> As I have said, copy me and my copy and I do not share the same subjective
> experiences (ask us what we see)
OK I will ask. If the you two are really identical you will answer my
question in synchronization if you are not then you will not.
>Since my copy can not share the same subjective experiences as me [...]
I thought that's what you were trying to prove.
> is obvious it is a different individual entity with its own experiences.
Not obvious at all IF THE TWO ARE REALLY IDENTICAL, so please don't
come back with stuff about them seeing different things because then they
would no longer be the same. As I've said nineteen dozen times when they
start to see different things they will diverge and that's why I don't want
my
backup older than a second or two.
>Thus a copy is not me.
But you may be the copy and if I were to prove that you are is there any
reason to be the slightest bit upset about it? I can't think of one.
>Given the fact that a copy and me will see different things [...]
Ahhhhh!
>Is it not reasonable to agree on definitions before we attempt to make
>arguments that involve such words?
No I don't believe it is , definitions are vastly overrated, examples are
much more important. You've "defined" death in such an odd way that
it's entirely possible that John Clark is already "dead" thus I have little
use for your word and don't care if I'm "alive" or "dead". Do you really
have a problem with the simple idea that if you think you have survived
then you have?
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:52 MST