On Monday, 18 July 2016, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 18/07/2016 9:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On Monday, 18 July 2016, Bruce Kellett <
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> [email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>
>> On 18/07/2016 7:59 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> On 18 July 2016 at 17:10, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/07/2016 5:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 July 2016 at 15:42, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2016 10:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problems arise because each copy has memories of being the
>>>>> original and, because of the phenomenon of first person experience, feels
>>>>> that he is the one true copy persisting through time
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would it feel any different if he weren't?  He doesn't know and
>>>> neither does anyone else.  So it's really meaningless to say he feels he's
>>>> the one true copy.  He's just relying on his previous prejudice that he was
>>>> unique.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes - it's a prejudice, but an important one nonetheless. I can be
>>> radically sceptical about the existence of the world and other minds, but
>>> still go about life as if it matters.
>>>
>>>
>>> But do the pronouns "I and you" have a referrent? It has been said about
>>> Descates' 'cogito ergo sum' that Descartes cannot conclude that he is
>>> thinking, he can only conclude that thinking is going on.
>>>
>>
>> From the fact that I think, it follows only that there is a thought at
>> this moment, not that there is an entity that has a stream of thoughts. The
>> entity, the "I", is not fundamental but emergent, the set of related
>> thoughts. These thoughts are not necessarily connected through sharing a
>> physical substrate. Sharing a physical substrate is a convenient method of
>> producing thoughts with the right sort of relationship to each other, but
>> as the sort of duplication experiments we are considering show, there can
>> be discontinuities in time, space and across non-interacting universes, and
>> continuity of identity, which is not meaningfully different to the illusion
>> of continuity of identity, persists.
>>
>>
>> But you haven't shown continuity of identity without some substrate to
>> provide coherence.
>>
>
> It's trivial to show this. I feel I am a continuation of the person who
> went to sleep in my bed last night. If you now demonstrate that overnight
> there was a discontinuity (of whatever type you like) in my physical
> substrate, that would not change my feeling that I have survived the night,
> and hence would confirm that this discontinuity does not affect personal
> identity.
>
>
>> You have relied on a particular notion of personal identity that has some
>> serious problems in the examples that have been used. For instance, the
>> loss of transitivity of identity throws into question the whole notion of
>> an identity persisting in time.
>>
>
> If you accept that the whole notion of an identity persisting in time is
> an illusion it makes things simpler.
>
>
> That rather contradicts what you said above about feeling that you are a
> continuation of the person you were yesterday. If the idea of persisting in
> time is an illusion, then so is your concept of personal identity. I
> thought the idea was to make consciousness and personal identity central to
> the theory -- not to abolish the concept of persons.
>

Moments of consciousness, or observer moments as they have previously been
called on this list, are in some sense fundamental. Their association into
persons is a construct.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to