On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > You have said multiple times that if there is more than one copy of you > then the idea if using personal pronouns when discussing the future is > gibberish, > If "you" can only be one individual, and if "you" is duplicated, then the question "what one and only one thing will you be doing tomorrow?" is obviously a gibberish question. Gibberish is useless therefore when people duplicating become available the way the English language works is going to have to change, especially in the way it uses pronouns. But that's OK, language always changes to fit the times. A definition of "you" to mean " anyone who can remember being Stathis Papaioannou right now " would work, but of course if that's what it means then more tha n one person could be "you". > > > and because of this, you would not make provisions for any of your > putative future selves. > Why on earth would that be? Gibberish can say nothing about what provisions for the future "you" should or should not make because it is, well, gibberish and contains zero information. It's not saying anything, it's just a sequence of letters meaning nothing. So yes, it world be silly to try to make sure "you" survive, but it would not be silly to make sure somebody who remembers being Stathis Papaioannou right now survives. "You" is just a word, but the conscious being reading this post at this instant is a great deal more than a word, and so w i ll be whatever remembers being that individual tomorrow . I t's important that the conscious being survive, it's not important if the word does. John K Clark -- 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.
