X-Message-Number: 22382 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:51:14 -0400 Subject: Re: try again From: Allan Randall <> In message #22364, Robert Ettinger states: > Also, as I have said many times with many > examples, a running computer simulation is NOT fully isomorphic to a > person, and > cannot be. Once more, the assertion that a simulation would "be" a > person is > nothing but dogma, with nothing whatever to back it up except the > perceived > elegance of the concept. Hi Robert, I'm new here, so kind of dropping in on the middle of this discussion, so forgive me if I am ignorant of the context, but... Why is it dogma for others to believe that a simulation could actually *be* a person, and not dogma for you to believe that it *cannot* be? You didn't say "I remain unconvinced", you said it "cannot be"... is that not equally dogmatic? Allan -- Allan Randall, , http://www.elea.org/ "Whatever can be thought of or spoken of necessarily IS, since it is possible for it to be, but it is not possible for NOTHING to be." -- Parmenides of Elea, c. 475 B.C. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22382