On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2010/1/15 Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>: > > > I would think the business is operating a scam and possibly report them > for > > making deceptive claims in advertising. There is no difference between > the > > economy or first class tickets other than price and so I would go with > the > > economy level ticket. I don't see how this is related, however, to the > > distinction between you being a single timeless OM, and only that OM, and > > you being a collection of, (possibly all) OMs. Once someone admits > personal > > identity can be composed of multiple OMs it becomes a very unclear where > to > > draw the line on where that person ends and another begins. > > But personal identity is composed of multiple OM's anyway, even if > there's just one biological version of you who lives and eventually > dies in a single physical universe. You had a moment of experience > THEN and another moment of experience NOW: two OM's. Are they two > single timeless OM's or are they both part of the stream of > consciousness of the one individual? The distinction is meaningless. > OM's will either seem to be connected or disconnected due to their > content. I like to say that each OM exists independently and > transiently and continuity of consciousness is an illusion, because it > simplifies questions about personal identity. > > > Consider > > evolution through time, and through the multi-verse, alternate you's in > > other branches where you differ so little that even you could not tell > > yourself apart. It forms a spectrum that could in extremely small steps > > connect you to any other person, so under that view where can you draw > the > > line? How many genes or how many memories must differ for you not to be > > you? > > There's no clear answer. This is where the idea that we live only > transiently is helpful: there is no fact-of-the-matter about who is me > and who isn't since none of them are me, but we can talk about under > what circumstances the illusion of continuity of identity would be > preserved. > > > If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism. Since it only benefits those future observers who have memory of being you but are not. It's not a useful philosophy for building anything on top of such as decision making as according to that theory, observers cannot make changes affecting what they will experience (since they only are that one moment). Perhaps things really are that way, but evolution has created a useful illusion of continuity which leads to the overall betterment of OM's on average. Rather than sit around never making coffee because it will be someone else who experiences it, you decide to make it knowing someone else will be better off for it. As you said, there would be no observational distinction between whether you are one OM, one track of OMs, or all OMs, but they lead to different philosophies, the first being perhaps something like nihilism, nothing you do matters to your. The second leads to egocentrism and selfishness. The last leads to a golden rule, sacrifice for others type of ethic. I think the middle one is the most complex, because it has the hardest definition as to what OMs to group together. Of the first and last, the last is perhaps simpler too, since it could be thought to attach one observer to all OMs rather than an observer for each OM. Jason--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.