X-Message-Number: 21297
From: 
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:58:38 EST
Subject: THE ESSESENCE OF A PERSON IS EXPERIENCEING, NOT LIFELESS INFORMATION

--part1_f9.2a40248c.2b8f111e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PIZER SAID:
>1. X is really distinct from Y if and only if X can exist without Y, and Y
>can exist without X.
>2. By definition, a duplicate would have to be separate from the original
>to qualify in the discussions/debates we have been having on this subject as
>being a duplicate.
>3. SO, if there was a real duplicate, it could exist apart from, and
>without, the original and by premise one it would be distinct. In other
>words, a duplicate is distinct from the original.
>4. THEREFORE, a duplicate is not the original.
>THEREFORE, destroying/killing the original and letting the duplicate survive
>results in the death (non-survival) of the original and therefore 
duplication
>is not a viable form of survival for any original.

PERRY SAID:
Going from here, and expanding on my previous comment, I see a major 
difficulty in that something important is not stated. What is it? Not 
enough is said about just what it is that is "original" and is then 
duplicated. Presumably, the "original" we are talking about is a human 
body, this much is clear (right?). But now I ask, *what is the significance 
of a body?* Is the body the person? For me the short answer is *no*, the 
body is not purely and simply the person, but is better thought of as an 
*instantiation* of the person.

PIZER = YES, THE ORIGINAL AND DUPLICATES ARE PERSONS - JUST NOT THE SAME 
PERSONS.  IF THE BODY, WHICH CONTAINS THE BRAIN, IS NOT THE PERSON, THEN YOU 
ARE DESCRIBING SOME SORT OF NONMATERIAL DUALISM.  AT LEAST, YOU ARE CLAIMING 
THE MIND IS NONPHYSICAL.  IF IT IS NONPHYSICAL, IT  DOES NOT EXIST  IN THIS 
UNIVERSE, IN WHICH EVERYTHING IS PHYSICAL.  SO THE ENTITY YOU ARE DESCRIBING 
DOES NOT EXIST. 

FURTHER -  NO, THE INSTANTIATION OF THE PERSON IS NOT BETTER THOUGHT OF AS 
THE PERSON - THAT IS SIMPLY BEGGING THE QUESTION FOR YOUR POSITION.  TRY 
STATING IT IN SOME OTHER WAY.  


MIKE SAID:
By way of a rough analogy, a "book you write" is not purely and simply the 
copy of the book you put on your shelf, after it finally comes back from 
the publisher.

DAVID = OF COURSE IT IS. IT IS A COPY, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE ORIGINAL.

 MIKE = True, the book can be said to survive in its copies 
(instantiations)

DAVID = NO IT CAN'T.  *THE* BOOK IS ONLY AND ALWAYS *THE* BOOK.  AN 
INSTANTIATION OR COPY OF *THE* BOOK IS JUST THAT, A COPY - NOT *THE* 
ORIGINAL.


MIKE  = --yet the book is not any one of these but something apart 
from them. In a roughly similar way, though there are some important 
complications that I'll gloss over in the interest of brevity, the person 
too can be said to survive in his/her instantiations.

DAVID = AS I SAID ABOVE, YOUR USE OF "INSTANTIATION" IS BEGGING THE QUESTION 
AND IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING "A COPY IS THE ORIGINAL, SO A COPY IS THE 
ORIGINAL."

MIKE = In the case of the book, we see how instantiations can be separate and 

distinct without thereby creating different books. Thus, to dupicate an 
instantiation is not to create a different book.


DAVID = IF THE INSTANTIATION IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, THEN IT IS NOT THE 
ORIGINAL AS PER MY ORIGINAL, AND CORRECT, DEFINITION ABOVE. 

MIKE =  In a similar way, a person 
could survive, I feel, through more than one instantiation, though again 
the situation is more complicated than in the case of the book. 

DAVID = YOU CANNOT COMPARE BOOKS TO PEOPLE.  BOOKS ARE OBSERVED FROM THE 
OUTSIDE, PEOPLE DO THE OBSERVING FROM THE INSIDE.  THE PROBLEM THE "A 
DUPLICATE IS THE ORIGINAL" HOLDERS ALL SEEM TO HAVE IS THAT THEY DO NOT SEEM 
TO REALIZE THAT IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT WHAT OUTSIDE OBSERVERS THINK, THE 
QUESTION OF SURVIVAL RESTS ENTIRELY ON IF THE ORIGINAL OBSERVING ENTITY 
SURVIVES AS IT'S CONTINUING SELF.   NO OTHER PART OF DUPLICATE PHILOSOPHY IS 
RELEVANT TO OUR PURPOSES - WE ARE INTERESTED IN  *SURVIVAL OF THE ORIGINAL.*


But again, 
to duplicate an instantiation (human body in this case) does not, in and of 
itself, mean we have created another person who is different from the 
original. If two initially identical instantiations start to live separate 
lives and have different experiences, as we would expect if duplication 
actually happened, *then* they become different individuals. But even then, 
in my view, the original person can be said to survive in both, in the same 
way as an earlier version of a person survives in a (single) later version. 

MIKE, YOUR VIEW SEEMS TO BE A NEW TWIST OF OLD FASHIONED DUALISM WHERE THE 
SOUL IS A NONMATERIAL THING.  YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THE SOUL AS INANIMATE 
INFORMATION.  NON-LIVING WORDS PRINTED ON A PAGE THAT CAN BE READ INTO 
DIFFERENT, LIVING  READERS.  THIS DESCRIBES A PERSON FROM THE OUTSIDE.  ALL 
PERSONS LOOK SIMILAR FROM THE OUTSIDE, SOME EVEN APPEAR TO BE IDENTICAL FROM 
THE OUTSIDE, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE (TWINS).  THE ONLY WAY EACH 
PERSON CAN BE TRULY INDEPENDENT IS BY HOW HE/SHE EXPERIENCES THINGS FROM THE 
INSIDE.


Thus one person could fission into two or more, equally authentic 
continuers which would be different people--I see no fundamental problem 
with that, at the philosophical level.

BEGGING THE QUESTION AGAIN BY CALLING THEN CONTINUERS.  YOU ARE USING THE 
MEANING OF THE WORD "continuer" AS CONTINUING THE *INFORMATION* THAT WAS 
BEING EXPERIENCED.  THE PROPER WAY TO USE THE WORD "continuer" IS THE 
INDIVIDUAL ENTITY THAT WAS *DOING THE EXPERIENCING.*  

THE ESSENCE OF BEING A PERSON IS NOT UN-LIVING WORDS, BUT THE LIVING ABILITY 
TO EXPERIENCE THINGS.


DAVID

--part1_f9.2a40248c.2b8f111e_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21297

Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster sent too many messages per digest.
It thus may need to be rated.