On 5 October 2015 at 10:06, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 10/4/2015 3:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 5 Oct 2015, at 5:14 AM, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/4/2015 12:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 4 October 2015 at 07:31, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> On 10/3/2015 11:32 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 5:02 PM, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/2/2015 8:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> Yes, it would think so, but would it be right? In what sense is it >>>> possible to right? >>>> >>> I don't think the difficulty of verification invalidates the point I am >>> making. A sceptical challenge could be mounted in everyday life - we could >>> have false memories and false beliefs about ourselves. >>> >> >> But we check those against the consistency of our environment, physics >> and our friends - which I think is the crux of Bruce's idea that you have >> to reproduce a big chunk of the surrounding world in order to get the kind >> of continuity you need. > > > Not really. If you unexpectedly found yourself in a weird environment, > floating in a bubble in space with no recollection of how you got there for > example, I think you would become anxious, theorise about how you might > have got there and what might happen next, and so on. I can't imagine that > your first thought would be that, with most normal environmental cues gone, > you would forget who you were. > > > Sure. But if you can find no causal explanation connecting your > circumstances to your memories you might well doubt your memories were > veridical, especially if you knew duplication of humans was possible. > > > But this doesn't mean that the sense of continuing as the same person is > dependent on replicating the whole visible universe. > > > Is that what the argument is about? Whether one can have the "sense of > continuity"? I'm pretty sure that's possible without even a very close > duplication. What does it consist of? ...knowing a name, some memories > associated with that name... > In ordinary life there is a sense of surviving from moment to moment as the same person. I may have lost track of what everyone on this thread is arguing about, but what I was interested in was how this sense of continuity can be preserved apart from the usual way. -- 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.
