Hal wrote: >If imperfect or diverged copies are to be considered as >lesser-degree selves, is there an absolute rule which applies, >an objective reality which governs the extent to which two >different individuals are the same "self", or is it ultimately >a matter of taste and opinion for the individuals involved to >make the determination? Is this something that reasonable >people can disagree on, or is there an objective truth about >it that they should ultimately come to agreement on if they >work at it long enough?
The way I see it, "Me" or my self is a poorly defined concept. It can refer to a number of different things. It could refer to my physical body (now or in the past or future); the mind that is part of *this* physical body (now or in the past or future); any mind or body indentical to this mind or body; any mind or bosy similar to this mind or body; etc. What you attach the descriptor "me" to is really a matter only of taste or context. One could try to tighten the definition of "me" to make it non-ambiguous, but then inevitably this will run afoul of one of the various thought experiments this list enjoys entertaining. Jonathan Colvin
