X-Message-Number: 25184
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:04:14 -0800
Subject: A (Broken Record) Response to Donald 
From: <>

Dear Donald:

You wrote:

"A small question: first, suppose you have been copied, then 
destroyed, and then rebuilt exactly --- for the sake of the 
metaphysics
involved, with the very same molecules. In just what way do you
fail to be the same person?"

I have explained this quite a few times already, and am beginning 
to sound like a broken record.

If you copy an apple, then you have two apples: one of them is the 
original, and one of them is the copy. The original existed prior 
to the copy. Even if they are atomically identical, you still have 
two apples. Destroying the original does not magically transform 
the copy into the original. The copy is always a copy.

The reason an electron microscope could not tell the difference 
between the two apples is because in order to do so, it would have 
to measure differences across spacetime, but it is only capable of 
measuring differences across space. But the fact that the 
microscope cannot tell the difference doesn't mean there isn't one. 
One of the apples is the original, and one of them is a copy. No 
amount of wordplay can change this fact of life.

Another way of phrasing this is Robert's 'continuity criterion'. 
Robert expresses his uncertainty as to whether or not this is 
important for survival. I am convinced it is, unless we reached a 
state tremendous advance in the sciences in directions unknown to 
us now.

However, I am sure he would agree with me on this---that whether or 
not the continuity criterion is ultimately important, it is best 
from a risk management perspective to assume that it is.

You wrote:

"Again, how do we know that while we sleep our QE (= Qualia 
Experiencer)
isn't destroyed and then recreated when we awaken?"

Put a video camera on your brain. Is it destroyed and recreated? 
No. Then neither is your qualia experiencer, which is PART of your 
brain. 

We could plainly tell if your QE were destroyed and recreated every 
night, since this would involve breaking and making numerous 
chemical bonds, which would release a great amount of heat, and the 
phenomenon would be plainly visible on IR cameras and would no 
doubt cause blistering (perhaps even combustion) of the skin.

Why do you insist on postulating the destruction/creation of the 
QE, when it is so easy to prove that it doesn't happen?

Perhaps you mistake my view for one in which 'I' am not the gray 
matter residing in my skull. But in my view, I AM the gray matter 
residing in my skull. Or at least, some portion thereof. Therefore, 
your day/night scenarios are not only implausible, but verifiably 
false.

[snip]

Best Regards,

Richard B. R.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25184