From: Bradley Thomas (brad36@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 03 2009 - 18:49:56 MST
John,
If you believe the clone and the original are identical then any distinction
of which to use in discussion is arbitrary. You could equally read clone for
original and vice versa. So its reasonable to let it stand as presented. It
makes no sense to me to claim on the one hand the the clone and the original
are identical and at the same time make the case that the person should be
considering from the other perspective. Clearly any argument made from the
other perspective would in that case be the same argument.
Brad Thomas
www.bradleythomas.com
Twitter @bradleymthomas, @instansa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:20 PM
To: sl4 sl4
Subject: RE: [sl4] Uploading
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 "Bradley Thomas" <brad36@gmail.com> said:
> What difference does it make if someone talks about the copy or the
> original, if they are identical?
I think they are identical but most do not, most think something of vital
importance is missing in the copy and thats why in thought experiments they
always play the part of the original, never the copy. They never spell out
exactly what that missing ingredient is in anything approaching clarity but
I'll give you a hint, it begins with the letter S.
John K Clark
--
John K Clark
johnkclark@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
unladen european swallow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT