From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 12:53:14 MST
Rafal writes
> This comes from seeing the direction of gravity as an absolute. If you refer
> it to your present position and define any deviation as impossible or not
> really gravity, you will not be able to accept the round Earth.
To be sure, at any point in history, or in the development of our
concepts, a certain flexibility is required. Yet, just as there
was in the case of the shape of the Earth, it often turned out
that there was a truth at bottom.
> Similarly, if you define personal identity as an absolute,
> logical attribute of a sentient, you will not be able to
> imagine personal identities defined referentially.
This is so, but is too liberal. Here is an analogy. Suppose
that there were two ancient philosophers discussing the nature
of heat, or warmth.
A: Surely you must admit that whether something is hot or
cold is an objective fact!
B: It's all relative. Compared to one thing, something is
cold, while compared to another, that thing is hot.
A: Yes, I misspoke. What I mean is that it is objective
how hot something is at a particular moment. Yes, it's
relative to other objects, but it can be determined just
how hot it is on a sort of absolute scale.
B: That too is false, my friend. Conduct the following
experiment. Take an item that you know to be cold,
such as your sword there. Now before touching it,
go put your hand in the lake for a few minutes. You'll
find that when you pick up the sword again, that it
will be much warmer than before.
A: Yes, that's true, but somehow I imagine that this is
only something to do with my body. I think that some
day philosophers will have enquired into properties
of things much further than we have, and will have
instruments---
B: You mean like a measuring rod or an astrolabe?
A: ---yes, exactly, an instrument that will directly announce
how absolutely hot or cold something is.
B: That's quite silly. It will never happen.
Okay, the point of my dialog here is that to beings vastly
more advanced than we are, the question as to what degree
a collection of molecules is Francis Bacon will be an
objective question.
(I use Francis Bacon, because that was the example Max More
used in one of his papers on personal identity called, I
think, "The Luckiest Man in the Universe". What was considered
there was what we should think of a collection of molecules
that just by sheer chance happened to take on the exact
configuration of the great 17th century philosopher. The
point is that both we and the collection of atoms are correct
to think of it as actually being Francis Bacon himself. For
sure, the collection of atoms won't be in doubt a minute!)
Bottom line: there is an absolute fact to the matter of
how closely something is Rafal or not. It will turn out
to be a very complex measure, of course, as any similarity
metric must. But it's definitely not subjective, like
beauty, but rather objective, like truth.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:55 MST