From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 11:32:33 MDT
"Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com>
>This is the core of my argument. If you copy and original, the
>original and the copy do not share the same sensory experience,
>so they *must not* be the same person
If that's the core then I don't see what were arguing about. I've said many
times that usually (but not always) the two would not share the same sensory
experience and yes that would soon make them non identical and yes that
would soon make them different people. All I'm saying is that as long as
they remain the same (and that won't be long in most cases) there is only
one person.
>if you copy an original and destroy the original, there is
>no reason to suspect that this new copy is a continuation
>of the subjective experience of the original.
Oh I think there is an excellent reason to suspect a continuation of
consciousness, just ask the fellow if he had any subjective experience
yesterday or last month or last year and I'll bet he'll say "yes". In fact
you will probably have an extremely difficult time convincing him that he's
the copy made just last night and not the original. I'll just say that if I
am the copy and the original John Clark was vaporized last night an instant
after I was made then I don't care in the least if the same thing happens
again tonight because I feel fine.
> It does not happen at the macroscopic level, so the analogy is flawed.
Macroscopic objects are made of atoms, you say atoms are what give us a
unique subjective experience but science says atoms are identical and I just
don't see how something without individuality can give us individuality.
Besides your atoms are in flux, you are literally not the man you were a
year ago.
> The huge difference is that they are two distinct separate entities. In
>the case of sub-atomic particles, one is at point xyz in space and
>the other is at point x+1,y+1,z+1 in space. They exist in two
>separate spaces, thus they are two different entities. I can point at
>them, one with each finger, and say 'see, they are two different
>particles,
Are they? How do you know they are not constantly exchanging positions? It's
not as silly a question as it may sound at first because that thought
experiment is at the core of one of the most important ideas in modern
physics, exchange forces. The general idea is that you describe two
electrons mathematically in two different way and then (mathematically)
instantly exchange them, now although the equations at first seem very
different you know that all electrons are the same so the system has not
changed and by knowing that two completely different looking equations
are really the same all sorts of interesting things can be found.
> A soul is not necessary to invoke,
The laws of Physics say the two atoms are identical and a difference in
their history can never be found even in theory but you say the two are
nevertheless somehow very different. The laws of Physics say it's bread and
wine but a Catholic says it's the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Six of
one, half a dozen for the other.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:46 MST