From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 07:05:25 MST
>At 22:28 -0500 12/11/00, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>I think the key question here is how the two copies are connected.
>
>*sigh* There is no connection. I've seen no one on my side of the
>argument so much as imply that there was one, even a little.
That's why I have difficulty in believing they are "one" thing. They
seem seperate and not connected in any way. They just are following
the same design and therefore act similarly.
>I had typed up several lengthy paragraphs expounding upon why I
>thought that you would construct such a wildly obvious straw man,
>but I realized that it would make no difference. There's a basic
>misunderstanding of positions on both sides of this argument:
A strawman is when you misrepresent the other's position and then
attack it. Representing my own unpopular opinion is not a strawman.
>To us, the importance of our continued existence is adequately
>represented by any *identical* copy that continues to carry on with
>our thoughts and memories.
Agreed.
>To you, the importance of your continued existence is only
>adequately represented by the program looking at the world through
>the eyes of the original you.
Mostly right, except that the physical eyes can be replaced with
other physical eyes within the same original.
>Trying to pretend that those core values can somehow be melded or
>argued around has turned out to be a rather fruitless endeavor. Fun
>and thought-provoking, but fruitless in terms of coming to any kind
>of consensus.
That's what I've been saying for a long time. We neither disagree in
science or specifics. We disagree in goals and motives.
-- Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:20 MST