X-Message-Number: 11257 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:34:05 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #11245 - #11253 Thomas Donaldson, #11246: > >If I understand the meaning of "digital", it implies the possibility (no, >not the probability) of two people who for a short time are identical but >do NOT share EITHER their past OR their future. That is the situation >I was discussing. > I would say, yes, in a way this is possible too, but it would involve a limited set of conscious experience on the part of the two. Over an interval of one second, especially when you are not particularly wide awake or thinking of much in the way of past experiences, or noticing much of the world around you, it is more likely (though still probably unlikely) that someone else could be having the same, limited experience. So we might say that each person has "subpersons" that are defined by limited conscious experience. Clearly, then, the more limited subpersons are more likely to be duplicated, just on statistical grounds, though these are not the whole persons. Rick Pierce, #11247 > > ... I have been following these discussions on >replicas and identity for some time now and it is all very interesting, >however, I think the issue has been beat to death(no pun intended) Taking this is as a possible hint that we are devoting too much space here to this issue, I will once again raise the question of whether we should have a separate forum, and offer to help with it if there is substantial feeling that we should. > and the >truth is actually quite simple. I believe it is an issue of consciousness. >None of the theories that I have heard will ever convince me that I can look >out of two sets of eyes at the same time. I submit that there is nothing contrary to observable facts in this very hypothesis (generalized as "two or more sets of eyes"), counterintuitive though it may seem to many. The name I use for it in my book is Interchangeability. It turns out to be a very important principle, one that is indispensable for the philosophical position I argue. It has very good consequences--but we have to disengage ourselves from identification with a particular body or material construct, and focus instead on just the processing that goes on. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11257