Re: duplicates are the "same"?

From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 09:55:42 MDT


Deniz Sarioz <ds1058@columbia.edu> Wrote:

>Having a duplicate is not significantly more than having an "identical" twin.

Nonsense, my twin does not have my memories, my duplicate does, my twin does not
remember being me, my duplicate does.
Also, all this talk about the temporal and spatial position of a mind makes no sense to me,
is it at the place the brain is at, the place the sense organs are at, or the place the mind is
thinking about? It's like asking where or when "beautiful" or "fast" exists.

> I liken this talk to two processes running on an operating system. [...]
>They have different process IDs, and have their own stack space.

The trouble with this analogy is that you're identifying with microchips when
you should be identifying with the operating system. Deniz Sarioz is not a noun
Deniz Sarioz is a adjective, you are the way matter behaves when it is organized
in a DenizSariozian sort of way.

> The number 42 cannot have a location. It is an abstract construct.

Absolutely correct, and exactly the same thing could be said about the consciousness
of Deniz Sarioz. And consciousness is what's important after all, not a few hundred pounds
of protoplasm.

     John K Clark jonkc@att,net

PS: I wish you could have seen THE ORIGINAL post of this message as I typed it into my
computer, it was great and would have convinced you for sure, but unfortunately all you
saw was a lowly COPY. My ASCII characters are much better than your ASCII characters!



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:53 MST