On 31/07/2016 6:41 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/30/2016 1:14 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote:
>
I'm the one person I was a moment ago because I have all the
memories of that person
Yes.
>
If duplicating machines are ever invented
It's only a matter of time. I'd be amazed if it took less than 10
years and equally amazed if it took more than 100.
>
then we can choose some rough and ready legal definitions.
Sure, but if history has taught us anything it's that what the law
says and what is true are two entirely different things.
>
But all this discussion of theories of personal identity seems
more about semantics and pronouns.
Getting the semantics and pronouns right is the first step, after
that the personal identity theory could still be wrong but at least
it's a theory and not gibberish.
--
But instead or arguing about whether "personal identity" is an
identity (i.e. reflexive, transitive relation), which it isn't, why
not just make up a new word for the concept that the Wman and the Mman
are the "continuson" of the Hman but not of each other.
That is essentially Parfit's solution.
And then explicate what is implicit in a the continuson relation.
This is way science would proceed if we actually had a duplication
machine. We'd make duplicates and we'd define continusation
ostensively and then we'd study it's properties - instead of assuming
things about computation and physics.
I am sure that the empirical approach is the only way we will ever reach
any understanding of what happens to people in duplicating machines.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
