On 4/10/2015 6:03 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3 Oct 2015, at 5:21 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 3/10/2015 1:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 Oct 2015, at 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>
wrote:
I think you are continuing to confuse the issues between local
copies, obeying the laws of physics and information transfer, and
remote copies outside our particle horizon. The latter are of
absolutely no relevance to me here-and-now because there is no
possibility of information transfer.
Remote copies are still copies. If a copy of you were made in the
Andromeda Galaxy a billion years hence, it would still *by
definition* think it was you despite being made of different matter,
despite it being far removed in space and time, despite it possibly
having no physical connection with you.
That is still within the forward light cone, so information could be
transmitted. Information is physical. If there is no transfer of
information, there is no way one could test what the copy thought.
Are you saying that the copy would not really be a copy until it
verified this by establishing contact with the original, or that the
mere possibility of establishing contact with the original is
necessary and sufficient?
You would no know you had a copy until the two were compared -- and that
involves the transfer of information.
Alternatively, what could it possibly mean for the 'copy' to think --
I am the person that was born in another galaxy a million years ago?
Perhaps people think crazy things like that all the time, but they
are usually put away so that they can do no more harm to themselves.
A lot of people believe that they are someone else, and they are
deluded, because it isn't possible in the world we live in. They would
not necessarily be deluded if it were possible.
Even if copies were possible, being deluded would also be possible. We
would only ever be able to tell the difference by checking our thoughts
against independent evidence from the world around us, other people,
etc, etc.
None of these checks is possible for purported copies outside our light
cone, or at remote times and locations.
Suppose you're told that according whatever criteria you have
defined you were *inadequately* copied last night in your sleep.
You believe you're Bruce Kellett, have his memories, look like
him, and everyone who knew Bruce agrees that he seems to be the
same guy. However, the atoms just weren't put in place using the
right procedure, whatever that might be. What difference does the
knowledge of this deficit make to you? What difference does it
make to anyone else?
How does such an implausible scenario differ from the observation
that I sloughed off some flakes of skin during the night, some
cells died, and some new cells grew, nourished by the food I ate
for dinner last night? Minor changes do not disrupt bodily
continuity, and all these changes are subject to the laws of
physics, so are completely traceable and understandable.
Yes, but as far as I can tell you think that there is some possible
scenario where your psychological continuity is preserved in the
sense I have described but physical continuity is not preserved.
No, I don't think that. I think 'psychological continuity' is an
empty phrase when there is no physical information transfer.
So this is exactly what I am asking you to consider. Someone who looks
like you, behaves like you, knows everything that you know, etc. wakes
up in your bed this morning. Overnight, some physical changes have
occurred. If you (the person waking up in your bed) are informed that
these changes consist of a few cells dying and being replaced, you are
not worried. But what if you are reliably informed that the physical
changes involve a random process, or something else that would render
'psychological continuity' an empty phrase, as you say. You (the
person waking up in your bed) still feel the same either way, and
everyone who knows you agrees you seem to be the same person. Would
you go around claiming that you were not Bruce, or that you are Bruce
but have experienced a psychological discontinuity, or that you
haven't experienced a psychological discontinuity because it's
meaningless, or what?
Psychological continuity is empty in many of the cases you propose
because no independent checking is possible. Psychological continuity,
if interpreted to mean only some commonality of memories, temperament
and the like, might have some content as part of the muli-dimensional
character of personal identity. But it is by no means sufficient, and
possibly (in extreme cases) not even necessary.
Bruce
--
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.
