From: Scott Badger (wbadger@psyberlink.net)
Date: Wed Jul 08 1998 - 08:13:25 MDT
This strikes me as a frame of reference problem. I see three frames; (1)
mine, (2) my copy's, and (3) yours.
Dan Fabulich asserts that from his frame of reference, my copy and I are
indistiguishable. Thus they are both Scott Badger. This suggests, of
course, that for Scott Badger to continue, either the original or the copy
could be destroyed and no harm would be done. Sure . . . from your frame of
reference.
My copy (Scott 2) would believe himself to be the original unless it was
convincingly demonstrated that he was, in fact, the copy. I (Scott 1) would
also be aware that I am the original. That, alone, would make us
distinguishable. When we're all three in the same room and you look at
Scott 1, point to Scott 2, and say, "That's you.", both Scott's will
certainly disagree with you. And they would be right to do so.
It's easier to accept your assertions if Scott 1 is destroyed and Scott 2 is
not made aware of the fact that he's a copy, *and* if you are not aware that
a copy was ever made. Now, for all intents and purposes of interaction, he
*is* me. But . . . who speaks for the dead? Just because my frame of
reference is unable to be expressed doesn't make it non-existent does it?
Best regards,
Scott 1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:19 MST