X-Message-Number: 14668
References: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:04:14 +0200
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Identity

>Message #14662
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:07 -0700
>From: Lee Corbin <>
>Subject: Identity
>
>Dave Pizer wrote #14647,
>
>>If [replacing an entity with a copy recreates the same person]
>>were true (and I grant that it may be ...but..) then if this
>>replacement process was done somehow without destroying the
>>original, and the original was sitting there looking at, and
>  >talking with, the duplicate, I think the original, at least,
>>would not agree that he/she was the other person (the duplicate).
>
>I was disappointed that no one in the recent flurry of
>identity posts defended this very point of view!  I for one
>certainly argue that my duplicate and I are indeed the same
>person, even if we are sitting across from one another
>having a chat!  Here's why:

In any discussion of identity, we need to distinguish between:

: Cellular identity. Identical twins share this.

: Bodily identity

: Social and personal identity (the Self)

: Reputational identity (the externalized Self). Including your property, etc.


This is laid out in detail in my "Essential Realities..." draft, 
which is available upon request.

In the above case, cellular identity remains the same, bodily 
identity is separated at the moment of duplication, the "self" 
diverges more and more, and reputational identity - this looks like a 
job for the lawyers.


dss
-- 
David S. Stodolsky, PhD    PGP: 0x35490763    

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14668