X-Message-Number: 26623
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:52:02 -0700
Subject: Mental Tangles
From: <>

Flavonoid wrote:

> RBR tries, in an earlier post in today's queue, to make a 
> distinction between 'physical entities' such as people and 
> apples, and "arrangements" such as a printed document one 
> can hold in one's hand, by use of the following definition:

Actually, the definition establishes the meaning of continued 
existence, which also clarifies what it means to say that something 
like, 'I am the original Richard, while my copy over there is not.'

The definition was not intended to make a distinction between 
people and documents. More generally I see you have misunderstood 
me on multiple levels. I will try to clarify my view in this 
message.

> Having to confess that is pretty elegant, I must also ask if it 
> was written specifically to lend credence to the dubious concept 
> that an apple has some  original quality to it that a word 
> processor printed document does not, 

Ignore the concept of originality since it seems to be causing so 
many problems for you. Instead, focus on the concept of sameness of 
identity. Is this the same apple I left on the countertop 
yesterday? Am I the same person I was before going to bed last 
night? etc. 

My distinction between documents and apples was not between 
*printed* documents (i.e. pieces of paper with words on them), but 
between 'virtual' documents that reside in computer memory. Such a 
'document' does not exist. Rather, what exists is a magnetic disk. 
You interpret the spins of the electrons on that disk to be a 
document. Hence, it is a 'virtual' document and not something that 
really exists, like you or I, an apple, or a printed copy of the 
Times.

> purely conceptual.  I also happen to think that any "originality" 

> attributable to an apple or a human, is also purely conceptual.

Again, ignore the concept of originality and focus on the concept 
of continued existence---i.e. sameness of identity.

Imagine I murder you and am duplicated in such a way that when me 
and my duplicate awake, there are no obvious indications of which 
one is the duplicate. Did my duplicate commit the murder? No. I 
committed the murder---my duplicate is mistaken in his belief that 
he committed the murder, just as he is mistaken in his belief that 
he is the original me. The 'original me' has a very precise 
definition, which allows one to differentiate between me and a copy 
of me. More generally, the concept of identity for real-world 
objects let's me make such statements as, 'I went jogging this 
morning,' even though the configuration of atoms comprising the 
Richard-bounded region is different than what it was earlier today 
(at the time I was jogging).

> Twin birth, cloning, etc. can create essentially identical 
humans.  
> Why not also call them "arrangements"?    Mr. RBR, you are merely 

> guilty of the fallacy of Argument by Definition.

Clearly, you missed my post entirely. I suggest re-reading after 
you finish digesting this message. Hopefully, you will gain a 
better understanding of what I was trying to say.

Richard B. Riddick

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26623