X-Message-Number: 25430
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:00:25 -0500
From: Francois <>
Subject: Definition of 'I'

>>"If ever a sufficiently precise copy on my brain is made in the
>>future, then 'I' will also exists at that other location."

>This is only true if you define 'I' as the arrangement of matter in
>your head. However, inherently lacking in such a definition of 'I'
>is the inner subjective life that you experience. You are trying to
>leap from saying the same arrangement of matter exists, to saying
>your subjective inner life continues in a copy if the original is
>destroyed. Surely you recognize you cannot make this leap without
>justification.

I do define 'I' as the arragement of matter in my head ( and the way it
changes with time, of course). The inner subjective life 'I' experience is
created by this arrangement and nothing else. That arrangement is also the
ONLY thing that makes a meaningful difference between your brain and mine,
or anybody else's. If it exists in more than one location, then 'I' exists
in all those locations. If, through some fluke of probability, an exact copy
of me has appeared a billion trillion light years away from here, then 'I'
am there, probably very puzzled at suddenly finding myself in such strange
surroundings. It would be completely irrelevant that both instances of me do
not share perceptions. 'I' would be there just as surely as 'I' am here, and
'I' would also be anywhere else the arragement of matter in my head exists
in functional form. If someone goes through a Star Trek type transporter and
reports that everything is fine, he is still 100% himself, then I would
believe him. There is no leap to make here, it all flows perfectly logically
and inescapably from start to finish.

Francois
The Devil fears those who learn more
than those who pray

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25430