From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 15:50:05 MST
gts wrote:
> Let us say I am a US Senator. After my last backup, I publicly change
> my position with respect to the question of whether to approve Bush's
> impending use of force against Iraq. Assume that my vote will be the
> swing vote and that Bush will abide by the will of the Senate. The
> Senate is scheduled to vote on the matter this afternoon. At lunch, I
> choke on a chicken bone and die. My death is reported immediately on
> CNN. My aids hurry to restore my backup so that I can vote this
> afternoon. This too is reported on CNN.
>
> My old backup is restored but he holds to my previous position on the
> Iraq question. He will vote contrary to the way I would have voted
> had I not died.
>
> Should the American public consider my backup to be me? If so then
> his vote is valid. If he should not be considered as be me then his
> vote is invalid. The future of the world hangs on this question of
> whether my backup is really me.
>
> In my view my backup is most certainly *not* me. His vote should be
> considered invalid. His different opinion on Iraq is sufficient
> reason to consider him a different person. Furthermore, because
> subtle personality changes like these happen constantly in response
> to one's environment, it follows that delayed backups should never be
> considered to have the same identity as their originals.
### But, why, why do you have a backup? You don't want a backup. You won't
have a backup. By definition, you cannot have a backup because you don't
believe in backups. By your own definition, you can only have a twin
brother, or something. You pose an internally inconsistent question.
Something like "If my black car was white, what would be its color?"
My answer "Whatever color you like, sir"
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:57:59 MST