From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 21:43:42 MDT
I am still way behind in answering mail on this thread, but
must comment on Jef's note
> gts wrote:
> > The idea that a person can be in two places at one time, Lee, is to my
> > way of thinking sheer and utter nonsense.
>
> It seems to me that gts and Lee are still not connecting in the sense of
> understanding what the other person is saying.
Well, I *do* understand what he is saying, but bow to your
analysis here:
> <referee>
>
> I see Lee saying that while there are two separate physical bodies (copies),
> doing separate things in separate places, that it makes the most sense to
> say that it is the same *person/identity* doing all these things at the same
> time. It comes down to whether or not you accept this radical definition of
> identity as useful.
>
> I see gts arguing something else, that it's silly to say that the same
> person can be in two places at once, and in the context that he's talking
> about, of course he's right.
>
> </referee>
Quite so.
> Right now we have a lot of discussion about the meaning of "identical" with
> offshoots into quantum physics and philosophy of Identity of Indiscernibles,
> which is in itself an interesting topic -- but all this debate is apart from
> the concept Lee is championing.
Yes, thank you. But it's common for this to happen in
threads, and of course I don't mind. But those tangents
are not about *my* point (not that those other points
are less important, of course).
> I observe the same thing that bothered me during an earlier discussion about
> altruism. I see endless debate swirling about definitions, but completely
> missing the key point. I observe Lee energetically stirring the pot, and it
> often seems that he is intentionally being obtuse,
About what? You haven't said anything about where you
find what I'm saying to be ridiculous. In fact, you
very fairly summed it up above as "It comes down to
whether or not you accept this radical definition of
identity as useful."
Well, I say it *is* useful, and proclaim that my notion
of identity---which dictates acceptance of level 7 in
my hierarchy---is what naturally evolves in SF scenarios
and that the "pattern theory of identity", as most fully
explained in Mike Perry's "Forever for All", is what will
one day be commonplace as programs rule.
Quite seriously, people should read "Forever for All"
if you are interested in seeing the future and saving
your life. Not only are there great and definitive
discussions about identity (with which I wholeheartedly
agree, by the way), but it's a gold mine for *all* the
issues tangential to cryonics. Order it today from
Amazon. It's the one by "R. Michael Perry".
> but perhaps this is because he [Lee] believes this is the
> best way for people to come to their own conclusions.
Jesus H. Christ. Believe it or not, I *never* do this.
What an absurd waste of time. Moreover, I have been
accused of *not* letting people come to their own
conclusions! If I am to be defamed, I demand to be
consistently defamed!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:47 MST