[extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?.

[Lee Corbin]

John writes

> And that's why he [Slawomir] also thinks anesthesia is the
> equivalent to death. Do you [Lee] really want to defend
> that 18'th century idea?

I may disagree with someone's opinion, but I will defend to
the death their right to be understood correctly.   :-)

Nothing should have given you the impression that I would
defend the notion that general anesthesia by definition 
kills anybody. Slawomir may think that, but not I.

I can only surmise that because I tried to clarify what he was
saying---and thereby was speaking in his defense, sort of---
that you think I'm on his side in the general debate. Whats
wrong witch you?

>> And according to him, that's the whole ball game.
> 
> And that's exactly what makes his idea downright comical.

And it's blunt statements like that that have caused the degeneration
of your exchanges with him to wry shouting matches. Or is that all
you're here for?

> According to him the whole ball game is something that is
> imposable to detect subjectively but nevertheless (for reasons
> never explained) I should be very concerned about it,
> subjectively. To say this is silly is a vast understatement.

No!  No,  It is not silly it's not even wrong  :-)  It's not even
incorrect! Slawomir is correct--- *on the meaning of his terms*.  

Can't you see that you keep begging the question?  What if you
are killed tonight by some gangsters, and replaced by an actor
they've paid to imitate John K.Clark.  The person acts like you do,
and since (say) you're a recluse, no one notices (he has studied
your emails carefully).  What if, to make it convincing, they also 
somehow hypnotize that actor to actually believe that he is
the person he's imitating?  Then *you* are dead, regardless of
your phony criterion of "subjectively".  

Subjectively he thinks he's you.  Does that make him you? OF
course not!

There is simply a fact of the matter!  For you and me either the
new creature has your memories and basic behavior, or it does
not. (Actually, of course, it's a matter of degree.)  For Slawomir,
it is also a fact of the matter:  either it's the same non-interrupted
running process or it's not.  (I don't know how he handles matters
of degree.)   But your criterion of "subjectivity" is bogus, even if
it is somehow coherent.  

> > I am appalled at the way that you... keep trying to take down a
> > straw man.
> 
> Straw man be damned! If The High Priest says he changed his mind and no
> longer things matter determines identity and stops harping on the vast
> "difference" between the copy and the original...

But surely, you wish to address his actual beliefs, not the beliefs you
erroneously attribute to him, right?

Lee