On 16 March 2012 21:04, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

>    Would it be not wrong to think of ordinary motion of an object through
> space as a form of repetitive "cut and paste" operation?

You mean on the basis of the same assumptions as the UDA, I assume?
Well, insofar as movement through space encompasses the stepwise
evolution of discrete computational states, I suppose that this would
necessarily be the case.   I'm not sure why you say this conclusion
would be "not wrong", unless it was a slip of the finger.  In Bruno's
thought experiment, in effect the two copies ARE the original after it
has been "moved through space", albeit by exotic technology.

It is interesting to recall that Bruno's interest in these ideas was
sparked by consideration of amoebas, which are naturally able to split
themselves into two identical copies.  If human beings were able to
perform a similar trick, cell-by-cell, and then wander off in
different directions, the divergence of personal identity from a
common source would in fact be seen as commonplace, not the stuff of
obscure logical thought experiments.

David

> On 3/16/2012 3:09 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> On 16 March 2012 17:28, John Clark<johnkcl...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>>> since by assumption each successor must be restricted to a single,
>>>>> localised experience That's the whole point of this step in the UDA
>>>>> reasoning.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know, and that's exactly the problem.
>>
>> OK, now we may be getting somewhere.  If that's "exactly the problem"
>> can I take it that you have some reason to dispute that the experience
>> of each successor would be individually localised in the ordinary way?
>>  Do you have an alternative account?  Make no mistake, I'm not asking
>> you to provide an enumeration of the different successors considered
>> as a group.  If you don't believe, in the thought experiment as
>> described, that the experience of each successor, considered
>> separately, would be individually localised, what DO you believe it
>> would be like, and on what alternative assumptions do you base this
>> belief?
>>
>> David
>>
> Dear David,
>
>    Would it be not wrong to think of ordinary motion of an object through
> space as a form of repetitive "cut and paste" operation?
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to