X-Message-Number: 25414 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:42:17 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Badger <> Subject: Disassembly I don't think the Identity horse is quite dead yet, so I'm going to kick it just a couple more times. Richard asserted that disassembly destroys the QE. But he agreed the QE would probably 'not' be destroyed if, while frozen, the brain were broken into just two pieces and then properly reassembled. And, of course, this is how most people woud answer. There's no reason why proper reassembly after being broken into 3, 4, ... n pieces shouldn't yield the same answer. There's no justification for drawing a line. Stating that at 'some point' the system becomes incapable of experiencing Qualia, and thus the original QE is destroyed is completely arbitrary. Analogies were given in attempt to provide support such as the one below. The analogy was used of a building being torn down (disassembled) and how constructing a new building using the same blueprint would not be the original. But what if I carefully disassembled a building bit by bit, carefully recorded where every bit was in relationship to every other bit, and then reassembled the building using the original bricks, beams, fixtures, etc.? I think the majority of people would 'intuitively' agree that the rebuilt building was, indeed, the same building. They would say it was the same building because they would 'observe' that the building looks and works exactly the same as before. More importantly, however, they would 'sense' it was the same builing because the same bricks and fixtures had been used in the reconstruction. They 'would not' agree it was the same building if I told them that the same blueprint, but all new materials, had been used. They 'would not' agree it was the same building if I told them that the same materials but a new blueprint had been used. Only extreme purists would disagree it was the same building if I told them that the same blueprint and all the same materials except for one new brick and one new lightbulb had been used. These are common sense answers. But, reason suggests that this 'common sense' perspective breaks down. What if I used 2, 3, 4, ... n new bricks? At what point is it no longer the same building? Different people would draw the line at different points but how could an objective line justifiably be drawn at any point? If I were to substitute the bricks and fixtures in this analogy with atoms, people would simply rephrase their belief that as long as the 'same' atoms are being used the original remains intact. But, of course, we all know that atoms of the same element are identical, non-discernable, and completely interchangeable. So it truly makes no difference which atoms are used or where they come from. For a person to insist that the 'original' atoms 'must' be used to reassemble any structure in order for the original to be 'saved' suggests that the person believes there is something metaphysically special about the original. I'm not immune to the psychological discomfort associated with these ideas. It doesn't 'feel' right to me that my brain can be completely disassembled then reassembled using either the same or different atoms and it will still be me. But if I consider myself to be a rational materialist, then I don't see how I can avoid the logic of it. Maybe someone else can show me the flaw in my reasoning. Also, please forgive me since I think this has all been said before. I just can't recall a good counter- argument. Happy holidays, Scott P.S. You're looking at a rainbow (and yes, I realize that rainbows don't really exist). A cloud crosses in front of the sun. The rainbow disappears. A few seconds later the sun comes back out and a rainbow appears again. Consider that the physical system capable of producing this rainbow effect has altered while the cloud was passing to at least some small degree, so the rainbow that appears at T2 looks a little different than the one at T1. Was the original rainbow destroyed or is it the same rainbow? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25414