Eric Cavalcanti wrote:

> >I do not equate my identity with the matter that composes my body at all.
> >I would say that my personal identity cannot be defined in a
> >communicable way, in the way I see it. I believe there is something
> >fundamental about consciousness.
> If you don't equate your identity with the matter of your body, then why
> would you believe that your stream of consciousness will always remain tied > to the "original body" rather than one of the copies? What is special about > the original body, besides the continuity of material with the material that > made up the body before it was copied? There are many of us on this list who > also think there's something fundamental about consciousness, but most of us > would say that consciousness is tied to *patterns*, not to distinct physical
> objects.

What makes me think that way is that I cannot believe that it is dangerous
to have someone simply scan your body.

But that's just a sort of "common-sense" reaction, no? In a world where copying was a regular occurence, people's common sense would tell them something different, since almost everyone would have memories of being scanned at some point and suddenly finding themselves as a copy. And if you try to imagine what kind of *theory* of consciousness/identity you'd have to come up with in in order for this common-sense position to be true, it seems to me that the theory would have to say that either physical or spatial continuity was somehow critical to determining what you'd be likely to experience...can you think of any alternative?


Reply via email to