On 7 October 2015 at 16:59, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 3:58 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Is a particular mind a natural type? Or is it only the generic 'mind' that > is a natural type? Maybe the particular mind is only a token of the generic > type 'mind', not a type in its own right. You beg the question in your > analysis. > > You postulate some unknown difference between your distant doppelgangers > that makes them not the same (despite being defined as the same > (physically, organizationally, materially, computationally)). Stathis and I > merely reject your theory that there is some unknown difference that makes > a difference. > > I am merely objecting to your tendency to create your preferred results by > definition. You *define* the distant persons to be identical, without > providing any way in which that claim could ever be checked. It is not that > I say that they are different, I say that you have no basis for your claim > that they are identical. And without being able to establish the existence > of identical brain configurations, and identical conscious states, then > your theory is only a matter of your definitions. And you cannot determine > what is real by definition. > You seem to believe that verification of similarity is needed in order for the statement that similar things are similar to have meaning, which is a strange way to think. Even the logical positivists allowed the validity of a priori statements. > > I have given good reason to believe that there are, in fact, no exact > copies of us, or our world, in the whole multiverse. No one has been able > to offer even the outline of a proof that there are, so I am content to say > that there are none. Prove me wrong if you want to disagree. > You have speculated that the universe is non-uniform, and that you believe we are not one of the structures that repeats infinitely. There is no good reason to believe these things, and I suspect most cosmologists believe in the Copernican principle, even though it has not been proven. -- 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.
