Well yes, I suppose there is a set of assumptions about persons that
makes the argument work, the trouble is can we come up with a truly
believable set of assumptions? (My comment also on Jesse Mazer's post also).

This is good - it is delving deeper into Parfit's argument, exposing
subtle traps within.


On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 03:07:49AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> There must exist a ''high level'' program that specifies a person in terms
> of qualia. These qualia are ultimately defined by the way neurons are
> connected, but you could also think of persons in terms of the high-level
> algorithm, instead of the ''machine language'' level algorithm specified by
> the neural network.
> The interpolation between two persons is more easily done in the high level
> language. Then you do obtain a continuous path from one person to the other.
> For each intermediary person, you can then try to ''compile'' the program to
> the corresponding neural network.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to