On 6/22/2015 11:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


On 23 June 2015 at 14:19, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 6/22/2015 8:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


    On 23 June 2015 at 10:05, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


        On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
        <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


            On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> 
wrote:

                Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



                            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.


                What he claims is irrelevant. The copies diverge almost
                instantaneously, so there are essentially always two new 
persons in
                these scenarios. If they are made to be different by the 
machine,
                then there is no duplication!


            I diverge from my previous self from moment to moment in ordinary 
life,
            but I still consider that I remain me. If I woke up tomorrow taller
            because I had a growth spurt during the night I would still 
consider that
            I was me; yet by the "closest continuer" theory, I would stop being 
me if
            a copy that hadn't grown was made somewhere else.

            I think waking up somewhere else would count strongly against being 
the
            closest continuation.


        What if, while both are asleep, the original is moved to another 
location and
        the copy moved to the original's bed?

        That would help, but there's an implicit assumption that 
asleep=mindless.
        Anesthetic would make a better example. But won't both the original and 
the
        copy find himself in a disjoint location incompatible with where he was 
before?


    The copy will find himself in the bed he fell unconscious in, and the 
original will
    find himself moved. Both would feel they were a continuation of the 
original, but
    not knowing about the switch they might guess wrong as to which was which.

    In what sense would they be wrong.  They would have different memories and 
be
    different persons.


One would be the copy and the other would be the original, but there would be no way to tell which was which without referring to a record of the procedure.

ISTM there's an equivocation here between a continuation in consciousness and continuation in body. If we say "the person" is just a continuum of conscious thoughts, then they are both continuations of the original. If we take into account the physical instantiation then we can say which is the original (assuming he's not destroyed and reconstructed in the duplication process) even though they are both continuations, by different means, of the original.

Brent

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to