From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 12:24:38 MDT
John K Clark wrote to Michael F Dickey:
>> 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 agree. In fact I think the words "original" and "copy" have no real
meaning in any discussion of perfect copying. It makes as much sense to
say there are two copies of the original after the copy event as it does
to say there is one copy and one original after the copy event. For the
sake of clarity I think these terms really ought not be used. Better to
use the term I've seen Eugene use here: "forking"
In a perfect emulation, the person "forks," diverging immediately into
two distinct persons with two distinct experiences and two distinct
cognitive processes and thus also two distinct personalities.
> Macroscopic objects are made of atoms, you [Michael] 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.
Indeed you are not even the same man you were a moment ago.
Michael Dickey wrote:
>> 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,
John Clarke replied:
> 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.
Yes. It is very possible that the universe ultimately contains only a
single electron, only a single proton, only a single neutron, etc.
(Kinda' reminds me of Platonism.)
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:47 MST