From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 22:01:05 MDT
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com> Lee Corbin wrote, > But of course, this is not what I am suggesting. I agree with > you that I am not you. I think that you already know that I > am only suggesting that all sufficiently similar instances of, > say, Harvey Newstrom be regarded as a single person. I agree > with you also that if one duplicate has a cold, and the other > does not, then the answer to the question "how are you?" could > be, "we are of two minds about it" :-) Seriously, of course, > as has been belabored, each instance sees, hears, and---about > unimportant things---thinks differently. Then we actually agree on what is happening. We are just disagreeing on nomenclature for these events. This is what I suspected was occurring. > > None of [your arguments] are scientific. They all represent > > descriptions of how much nicer things would be under your view. > > Unfortunately, we cannot choose a viewpoint because we like it. > > A viewpoint must be chosen that matches reality, or the > > viewpoint will fail to deliver all the things you wish for. > > I agree. But it is wrong for you to suggest that there > is any straightforward scientific answer to this question, Right. The objective description we agree upon are provable. The nomenclature systems that we choose to adopt of subjective. I think we agree. > For better or worse, indeed we do choose some viewpoints > "because we like it". You can't tell me that you would > be completely unaffected if your friends and neighbors > got to exploit some new technology that you couldn't > because of your philosophical views. What if I proposed that we kill you and hire a cheap actor to replace you. It would be good enough for your employer. No matter how many people choose this way, you wouldn't be convinced. If you really believed you would die, you would never give in to peer pressure, convenience or temptation to do it "just once." > Imagine there are three entities A, B, and C, that > subscribe to your view who you get to interview (I'm > sorry if you already understand my point, now, but > there are other readers). So on Monday you go to A > and say: "will B who is a copy of you made tomorrow be > you?". He'll say yes. "How about C? Will he also > be you?" Again, he'll say yes. Now we go to Tuesday > and ask B, "Are you the same person as A?" He'll say > yes, and C will also maintain that he's the same person > as A. So your view generates that A and B are the same > person, and that A and C are the same person, but that > B and C are entirely different people! Something > sounds wrong here! That's because your wording is imprecise. You are confusing yourself by equating A with B and C. When A exists, there is no B and C. When B and C exist, there is no A. You cannot use the present tense verb "is" to equate these entities that do not exist at the same time. I think it is more accurate to consider the copies to be equivalent derivations of the original. When the person splits into two copies, it is like a river that splits into two branches. The left branch is a downstream continuation of the river. The right branch is a downstream continuation of the river. But the two branches are not downstream continuations of each other. Or to put this in logical terms: A --> B (this is true) A --> C (this is true) B --> C (this is false) C --> B (this is false) -- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:56 MST