From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 09:09:48 MST
Sorry I wasn't direct enough. I was objecting to you repeatedly calling
another point of view insane and irrational, when it is apparent to others
that you have been arguing about two very different things.
One good way to get out of these loops is by first trying to understand and
state the other person's argument *as you think they see it*.
Perhaps another way to state the mismatch is the following:
Lee is not saying that two copies are identical, meaning same in all
respects. All this talk about whether two things can be exactly the same,
whether at the macro level or the quantum level; whether two things can ever
be the same in a philosophical sense (Identity of Indiscernables); or
whether a single person changes or not day by day, second by second, or at
any other time increment; can be interesting topics on their own, but are
completely aside from the point Lee is trying to make.
Lee is saying that multiple copies of a person, for practical purposes, have
the same *personal identity* (not identical persons), and that this is a
useful concept.
The ambiguities of our language are both a blessing and a curse.
- Jef
gts wrote:
> Jef,
>
>> Lee has suggested a broadened definition of personal identity that
>> may or may not be useful with regard to duplicates of one's self.
>>
>> Whether this concept is useful or not is a subject worthy of debate.
>
> Exactly. So why do you fault me for taking a position in the debate?
> You'll seldom find me straddling the fence in any subject worthy of
> debate.
>
> -gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:55 MST