From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 13:43:16 MST
John Clark wrote:
> "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rms2g@virginia.edu>
>
>> If the copies inherit gts's definition, then the definition will be
>> of decisive importance here.
>
> No they will not be. There is no reason to think gts would even know
> a copy was made much less that he was the copy, and even if you could
> somehow prove to him that it's true what would he conclude, that he's
> dead? Obviously not.
### According to what he writes, once you prove to him he is a copy, he'll
say the original gts is dead, and he is something akin to his twin brother,
sharing memories until his death. Maybe you can ask him, he knows it better
than I do.
------
If he has the ability to ask the question of
> himself and remembers quite well being gts then he's not dead and you
> will never convince him that he is regardless of the words in his
> dictionary. Definitions are utterly unimportant, examples are not.
> Survival is that thing that to me seems the same between yesterday
> and today; to gts copy or original something seems the same to him so
> he must have survived.
### He doesn't agree with it, AFAIK. Since it's his identity, he is the one
to decide.
-------
>
>> At least one of the gts's will disagree about being identical to the
>> others (ask gts, he'll confirm it). Opinions of his copies will be
>> discordant.
>
> After a few seconds yes. So what?
>
### Precisely. If copies and originals disagree as to identity, you need a
method of resolving the conflict (including the legal and financial issues),
and the one you proposed, simply taking the word of a copy, can be
unsatisfactory to the original and other copies, as I said in the beginning
of our discussion.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:05 MST