From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 22:24:48 MDT
Jef writes
> Lee -
>
> When I read this, I was almost sure you were playing devil's advocate,
> playing out a stream of thought that seems logical within its limited
> context, but one that wouldn't be very useful in the context of the world
> we live in. I thought you must be arguing this viewpoint either for the
> pleasure of constructing it, or the fun of see what reaction it would
> bring. I was certain you must have been playing with word meanings and
> the ambiguity we have when we talk about ourselves past, present, and
> future as if there's no difference.
I wish I knew what it was about my style that gives
rise to such impressions. Literally, I would pay
big bucks to have it excised.
> I was surprised, once again, to find that I have apparently misjudged your
> intent. I find the same ideas, in more expanded form, in an essay you wrote
> at http://www.quantium.cwc.net/lr80.htm so I must conclude that you were
> serious and sincere in what you wrote.
>
> One of the reasons I continue to subscribe to this list is that it continues
> to surprise me.
Thanks for that reference, Jef. The essay to which the above
refers is my 1996 "Duplicates are Self: A Proof", which perhaps
isn't so modestly titled as it should be. ;-) But in it I lay
out the best arguments I've ever had for why indeed duplicates
*should* be regarded *exactly the same* as self.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:34 MST