From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 15:09:47 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: John K Clark
"Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com> Wrote:
> As I have said, copy me and my copy and I do not share the same subjective
> experiences (ask us what we see)
"OK I will ask. If the you two are really identical you will answer my
question in synchronization if you are not then you will not."
So to be identical you must mean we have to be experiencing the same
subjective events, for that to be the case we would have to take up the same
space at the same time, which is impossible. If we are in separate places,
we must be different entities. If we do not experience what the other
experiences, then one can not be a subjective continuation of the other,
thus he is not the other.
>Since my copy can not share the same subjective experiences as me [...]
"I thought that's what you were trying to prove."
I don't know what to suggest here except to read what I am actually saying
instead of, perhaps, what you think I am saying. Everything I am arguing is
based on the outcome of this thought experiment. If you copy me and my copy
and I do not experience the same thing, he *can not* be a continuation of
me. As I have said, I do not know this is how this experiment would turn
out, but if it turned out any other way, *that* would suggest the existence
of a magical entity that connected us. If you think the copy and the
reference would experience the same thing, that of course would contradict
my arguments. Please see my post to Eugen just before this one for my
explanation of why I draw the conclusions I do from this thought experiment.
> is obvious it is a different individual entity with its own experiences.
"Not obvious at all IF THE TWO ARE REALLY IDENTICAL, so please don't come
back with stuff about them seeing different things because then they would
no longer be the same."
Honestly I have never cared if semantically they were 'the same' (see my
previous discussion on what we mean by 'the same') I care if one of them is
a continuation of me. It is reasonable to conclude that the copy is not a
subjective continuation of me (if the thought experiment turns out the way I
predict) because he and I do not share the same subjective experiences.
"As I've said nineteen dozen times when they start to see different things
they will diverge and that's why I don't want my
backup older than a second or two."
I do not doubt they see different things, the fact that they do *proves* my
point, that they MUST be different entities, and that a copy *can not* be a
continuation of me. How can you assert that he sees different things AND is
a continuation of you if you were not destroyed?
>Thus a copy is not me.
"But you may be the copy and if I were to prove that you are is there any
reason to be the slightest bit upset about it? I can't think of one."
No, unless I found that the original was destroyed in the process. I know
that I dread destruction, so I would be reasonably sure that the reference
that I am a copy of from a few moments before also dreaded destruction, thus
I would mourn his loss.
Tell me, if you were in a room full of copies made very recently (a few
seconds) and you killed 10 of them, would you feel like you killed 10
people? Or 1 person? What if they were a week old? A year?
>Is it not reasonable to agree on definitions before we attempt to make
>arguments that involve such words?
"No I don't believe it is , definitions are vastly overrated, examples are
much more important. You've "defined" death in such an odd way that it's
entirely possible that John Clark is already "dead" thus I have little use
for your word and don't care if I'm "alive" or "dead". Do you really have a
problem with the simple idea that if you think you have survived then you
have?"
You do not believe that definitions are important when arguing? What if we
were arguing if farmouzabala was vitchilimi? Would you not want a
definition of both farmouzagbala and vitchilimi? Well we are arguing if a
copy is you, shouldn't we also define 'copy' and 'you' to come to a
meaningfull resolution?
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:53 MST