On 26 Feb 2009, at 18:32, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2009, at 17:15, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>> 2009/2/23 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
>>> The copy could be you in the deeper sense that it could be you
>>> even in
>>> the case where he loses some memory, all memories, or in case
>>> he got
>>> new memories, including false souvenirs. But then it is like in
>>> movie "the prestige", your brother can be you. This path leads
>>> to the
>>> idea that we are already all the same person. It is "not being
>>> other" which is an illusion in that case. I don't insist on this
>>> because we don't need to see that arithmetic is the theory of
>>> everything (and that physics comes from there). But it is
>>> needed for
>>> the "other hypostases" and the whole theological point.
>>> If the "copy" has no memory of being me then It's not me...
>> Memory is very important, and play an important role about what is to
>> have a normal personal life and history. But it could be that it is
>> a necessary (nor sufficient criteria of personal identity. After all,
>> when someone get amnesic after a car crash, we don't say that such a
>> person has died, but we say he or she has lost his or her memory.
> Because of continuity of the body. If we knew the person's body was
> destroyed and now someone who looked the same and had the same traits
> of character, but different memories, appeared we would say it was a
> different person who just happened to be similar - and the person
> would agree with us.
I am not sure.
>>> or you mean there is something which is not memory but which is "me"
>>> (and render memory useless as primary property of the self) ?
>> I think this is possible. I think the answer does not depend of comp.
>> Comp is consistent with many incompatible answer. Actually I believe
>> that personal identity is a very deeply personal matter. I identify
>> myself more with moral values and attitudes, not really with
>> which are useful for many practical things, indeed capable of
>> implementing those values, but the values are more eternal than their
>> relative local and contingent incarnation or implementation.
> But those values were learned and so are that sense memories, even if
> not conscious memories. So were perhaps "hard-wired" by evolution;
> but that too is a form of memory.
>>> It is a matter of semantic but if you accept that memory is not what
>>> can be ascribe to "you" then "you/I/..." doesn't mean anything... in
>>> that sense you are me and vice-versa, and everyone is everyone but I
>>> don't see this as a theory of self identity.
>> Personal identity and memory could be a useful fiction for living.
>> I was alluding to possible deeper sense of the self, which makes me
>> conceive that indeed there is only one person playing a trick to
>> Like if our bodies where just disconnected windows giving to that
>> person the ability to have a sort of stereoscopic view on reality.
>> In some dreams, I have very different memories, yet "I" was there,
>> "I" was me.
> Isn't that because "you" remember the dream when you are awake and can
> compare the memories?
That would be a reason to doubt I was me.
>> To get amnesic, even irreversibly, is not dying, even if it
>> is a big impediment in practical life, and it should be avoided,
>> it is reversible (and then it procure an interesting experience (the
>> main reason i am fascinated by nocturnal dreams, and since
>> recently, in
>> salvia reports).
>> Memories, like body and brain are things we possess, and this
>> means, I
>> think, that we can still survive without them.
> I'm doubtful. I suspect that "I" is a construct of the brain, part of
> how it makes sensible story of the world. You call it a useful
> fiction - but just because it's a story, doesn't mean it's fiction.
I think "I" is a logical construction (we will come back on this).
Memories have a big values, but "I" don't put it in my identity, nor
would I put the content of my books in my identity. But as I say, this
could be personal stuff.
>> Suppose that I die tomorrow, and that sometimes after someone find a
>> backup of "me" at the age of five, so that "I" am reconstituted from
>> that backup. Would you say I am dead, or would you say that I have
>> survived, only with a severe sort of amnesy ?
I ask what I just asked to Quentin: what if the backup has been done
last year or a minute ago, or a second ago?
Did I died this night, given that I don't remember the dreams I made?
We are in the subtle à-la "The prestige" water ...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at