[extropy-chat] Survival tangent

[Damien Broderick]

At 05:32 PM 10/31/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:

> > (2)  Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBM is
> > tantamount to saying that each person is all persons.
>...
>
>(2) should be, "Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBMs
>implies that a person can survive as long as these same VBMs distributed
>among other people's heads survive."
>
>So you appear to be saying that it follows from (1) that a set of
>values, beliefs and memories distributed throughout a set of persons is
>equivalent to a set of values, beliefs, and memories associated with a
>single person.  Again this would be the fallacy of the undistributed
>middle.
>
>While I know of many who have asserted that one is effectively defined
>or distinguished by ones values, beliefs and memories, I know of no one
>(other than you) who has said that this implies values, beliefs and
>memories could be independently distributed as you say. So what are you
>arguing against here?

My understanding is that Slawomir 's saying *exactly the contrary*, 
and that this is what vexes him about your reading.

Damien Broderick