[extropy-chat] Cryonics and uploading

[Bret Kulakovich]

Ok,

I agree, the term 'original' is useless at this point, except perhaps  
for sentimental value, which is arguably useless as well.

"Here are two instances of John Clark."

Now each of them is conscious. Two separate conscious entities, I am  
assuming.

One walks out of the room and comes back a while later. Do they both  
know where the one who left went? I'd say no. They aren't linked in  
any way. So their experiences are distinct.

But one still existed before the other, and lent all of its perfectly  
copied experience and properties. to the second, which did not exist  
before the process.

So both sets of matter are now experiencing life in a johnclarkian  
way with all of their johnclarkian faculties, etc.

However:

The moment they were perfectly copied they are distinct again,  
because their experience point diverged, as did their location, at  
the moment of creation. So in that manner they are not equal, one is  
space-shifted and the other one was not.

True?



On Jan 26, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 1/26/06, Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:
> Even if I re-arrange matter in a johnclarkian  way twice, is it  
> John Clark, or John Clark and another John Clark? Two John Clarks.
>
> Is it meaningful to say "This is the original John Clark, and this  
> is a copy?"
>
> Or (supposing a sufficiently accurate copy) is the word "original"  
> just meaningless noise, and should we just say "Here are two  
> instances of John Clark"?
>
> The former is the thread view, the latter is the pattern view.
>
> - Russell
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060126/67b437d9/attachment.html>