X-Message-Number: 27590 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:28:55 -0500 Subject: Everyone Wants a Piece From: <> >> Discussions of the nature of Identity have resumed for a while and I have had some new thoughts on the subject. I think the problem we are facing here is that we are arguing about two different things which we are confusing with each other. << No, this is not actually the problem. There is a true disagreement, as I will explain below. >> I think Robert's mathematical definition of identity is probably perfectly valid, although I do not have the mathematical training to fully understand it. << It looks like you have merged the identities of Robert and me. >> Individual A dies, individual B comes into existence, but the person that calls himself Sam lives on. Sam's opinion is the only one that matters, and a person calling itself Sam clearly exists in Individual B just like it existed in individual A. Sam did escape the spaceship. << This is proof by assertion. Before I lay out the facts, let me define some terms to make this conversation more precise. When I say, 'individual B survives individual A', I mean, individual A did not have a last experience; i.e. from the subjective perspective of individual A, B surviving A is qualitatively different than A dying. Now, we can both trivially agree that 'individual B survives individual A' in the case that B is the same as A, using the definition of identity you are calling 'objective identity', because then the statement reduces to a mere tautology: 'individual A [at some time t + d] survives individual A [at some time t]'. The me of now survives the me of a second ago. Where we disagree is when A has a different identity ('objective identity', if you like) than B; e.g. is a different hunk of matter, as in the case of your starship example. In this case, you say we know that individual B survives individual A because individual B says so, and, well, 'his is the only opinion that matters.' Let me say, this is plainly one of the most ridiculous arguments for patternism that I see (but also one of the most common). In this case, Sam-on-the-ground will make numerous claims about his past: viz., who he married, what he did a week ago, what the names of his parents are, etc., that are demonstrably false, because we know for a fact that Sam-on-the-ground was synthesized from scratch, and never had a wife nor parents, and he didn't exist a week ago. So we know for a fact that 99.99999% of the claims Sam-on- the-ground makes about himself are false, because he was created mere moments ago. So when he says, 'I'm the same Sam, I really did survive!' you honestly want us to take him seriously?!? Of course he thinks he's the same Sam. But he's objectively not. He did not survive Sam-on-the-starship. Sam-on-the-starship is dead and gone forever. The survival of Sam-on-the-ground is therefore irrelevant to the survival of Sam-on-the-starship (you would agree this is the case if Sam-on-the-starship somehow miraculously survives the crash, unknown to Sam-on-the-ground; why do you think it's any different if he dies? Your mind is confused). That's the real difference between a patternist such as you, and a materialist such as me. We really do disagree. Richard B. R. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27590