On 22 June 2015 at 17:05, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 22 June 2015 at 16:35, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> John Clark wrote: >> >> After they diverge they will still both identify with the same >> person, John Clark, HOWEVER they no longer will identify with >> each other, and both would consider their life to be more >> important than that other fellow who happened to have the same >> name. Before they diverged things would be very different, there >> would be no other fellow, there would only be one. >> >> That is an eminently sensible statement. It accords well with the >> "closest continuer" theory of personal identity. According to that >> theory, if there is a tie for being the *closest* continuer, as in >> this case, the initial person does not continue, but two new persons >> are created. If the duplicate is identical to the original in every >> respect, there is only one person -- identity of indiscernibles and >> all that. JC is correct, there would be no 'other fellow'. >> >> Once the copy diverges from the original, there are two different >> (new) persons. They may share some memories, but so what? People >> often share memories. Neither is the original person. >> >> The "closest continuer" idea is wrong on many counts. Both copies >> consider themselves to be the original - both are wrong in your view. But >> if one copy was 0.1% different from the origina, that copy would not be the >> continuation of the original, despite thinking that he was, just a bit >> taller and a bit happier for the experience. On the other hand, if one copy >> was 1% different and the other 0.1% different, the 0.1% copy would be a >> continuation of the original. And if the 0.1% copy was in a coma when >> created, the 1% copy would be the continuer until the 0.1% copy was revived. >> > > How are you going to measure these fine differences? If there is a tie > according to any appreciable measurement, then there are two new persons. > Don't forget that the duplication is only accurate at the level of > replacement, which is never assumed to be exact -- we cannot have exact > copies because of the quantum cloning restrictions. The odd difference in > the number of atoms in your big toe is not a relevant difference. It's easy to measure differences. One of the new JC's is taller and better looking. Naturally, he claims that he is the true JC, but improved. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
