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