From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 18:10:23 MST
Jef writes
> This discussion has meandered all around the issue: whether two things can
> ever be considered *exactly* the same on the macro and quantum level;
> whether an entity can directly and immediately experience (in some
> mysterious way, or through additional technology) the experience of his
> duplicates (which was never the issue); whether time differences all the way
> down to the Plank scale make any difference (useful in highlighting biases
> and preconceptions, but also not part of the key issue); and now MWI which
> imparts a kind of scientific/mystical air within which mysterious things
> might be true... and on and on.
It has, and I guess you're supposing it's because people
aren't focusing correctly on the essentials.
> Again, the key issue was not about any mysterious physical properties or
> interpretations of physical properties.
Yes, I guess you're right.
> The original issue is the following: Assume that we will have the
> technology to create a physical copy of a person,... then it will
> be useful to begin to overcome our evolutionary and cultural biases
> and come to conceive of these copies as extensions of ourselves,
> rather than as separate individuals.
Yes.
> Here is where the confusion and disagreement sets in. As I see it, there are
> various reasons for the confusion. (1) Lee often writes in a way that
> pre-supposes that people already share his understanding and use of
> concepts. For example, he will say that he would experience what is
> happening to his copies at other times and places. He is not implying
> anything amazing here in a physical sense.
I've always gone to great pains to make it clear that we weren't
talking about ESP or anything.
> He's just saying that we would and should get used to thinking
> of all the copies as ourselves. (I'm not saying we would or
> should, but I understand that we could.)
Indeed we should, just as you write here.
> Lee appears to sometimes enjoy putting a seemingly outrageous
> statement in front of the group, and then coming back to work
> with all the objections and misconceptions.
Guilty as charged! But still, I like everyone else always
take pains to write as clear an explanation as I can, and
so far as I can, I attempt to head off misconceptions. Do
you personally recall seeing something out of the blue
unattended by as persuasive an argument as I was able to
write? I wouldn't have time for stupid games anyway,
even if it weren't dishonest.
> Personally I think that's a fun way to get people's
> interest, but in this case dealing with the results
> is really old.
Every good essay should start with a claim of what it
is about, an honest and fully forthright claim. You
can't blame me for the intracticability of identity
discussions, because they're long and intractable
whether I'm in them or not.
> Lee seems to feel (and he may be right) that the best way for people to come to
> understand what he is talking about, is for them to work through all the
> layers and alternate pathways, much as he did over many years, but each in
> his own way,
We all have to work through all the layers and pathways of
anything worth knowing. It's really a never-ending process.
To understand General Relativity, even as far as I have got
as a layman, has for me meant literally hundreds of thought
experiments. What if a light beam travels from space to a
deep gravitation well like a heavy planet. What happens to
its frequency? What happens to its wavelength? How does
each observer square what he sees with theory? What happens
if a photon approaches a black hole? Could there be anything
like a uniform gravitation field? Does acceleration produce
time-retardation, or only depth within a gravitation field?
And so on and so on.
Perhaps indeed one does need to think up lots of experiments
for oneself, and see if any can invalidate what one is thinking.
But it does *not* take years and years. Just look at your own
case, Jef.
> therefore he doesn't make things as explicitly clear as one
> might think he could.
I really am doing my best. I do admire the way that you and
Rafal are able to explain some things, and you have each made
some of these things clearer. That's good. But stop imagining
that I could necessarily do that if I just wanted to.
> I may be overly optimistic, but I don't want to wait years, and I believe
> people can make quicker progress by working together to clarify areas of
> commonality and difference, rather than the kind of debate where one side
> expects to "win."
Well, if you don't want to "win", as you call it, i.e., be
proved right in your claims, then you are some kind of saint.
I hate it when I "lose", because, sigh, it's back to the
drawing board and a huge revision of what I believe. Of
course, sometimes this is totally necessary, and then I
am at least capable (now, anyway) of thanking those that
helped set me straight.
Don't you think that you understand identity now? Or at
least a lot better than some people? How would you feel
if gts proves himself entirely correct, and that you have
only adopted (for unknown peculiar reasons) an insane view?
> As I've said before, when two sides continue to disagree, and one side or
> the other thinks the other side is crazy, it can be very useful to try to
> paraphrase what you think is the other side's position.
That's generally very helpful, I think.
> In this case, neither side is crazy,
Right! The topic is only very difficult.
> but they've certainly been talking about different things.
Maybe they have, and maybe they haven't.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:09 MST