[ExI] Uploading and selfhood

[Michael Miller]

But if you cannot specify with precision what it is that makes this particular configuration of atoms "you", how can you claim a virtual emulation to be identical? Is it behaviour that you're saying fulfils the term johnkclark? Then, are you still not claiming some ethereal 'platonic form' of johnkclark-ness against which we measure?

I think to claim that "johnkclark=matter organised in a johnkclarkian way" is a tautology. It's like saying we make bread by processing flour in such a way that it becomes bread. I'm not challenging you here or trying to disagree with you, I'm trying to understand what you mean because at the moment it doesn't make sense to me. 

Back to the identity of indiscernibles. "if the objects in question are identical you can't even know their position, maybe it's there but maybe it's that identical thing over there". Surely this works against itself (and your original point): if two objects are indiscernible even to the degree of their location, then in what sense are we talking about two objects? How can you combine this with an assertion that one of the objects is 'over there', as this itself implies a difference in location. I completely agree with the principle of identity, that A=A...but as soon as we start saying there's an A here and an A over there, but we can't actually discern their positions in order to tell them apart, then we have neither criteria for identity nor discernibility. We have a lack of definition which encompasses the possibility of both. It's an unresolvable trick of language. Do you see what I'm getting at? Maybe I'm me, but maybe I'm not me, I'm another thing
 which we can't differentiate from me. What is the meaning in saying this? I can't find one.

Mike

----- Original Message ----
From: John K Clark <jonkc at att.net>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 7:11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Uploading and selfhood

Michael Miller wrote:

> Okay. What then is the subject of the adjective 'I'?

Matter. I am the way atoms react when the are organized in a johnkclarkian
way.

> I was asking you to elaborate on what you mean by the word self. I think
> you have still managed to avoid telling us.

You are correct. I refuse to give a definition because I can provide
something far far more important, an example.

> although you are quick to criticise me for a perceived belief in a soul,
> it is yourself that is clinging to some kind of essential self.

Correct again. I have already stated that I believe in the self, so it is
not unreasonable to suppose there is something essential in it, and that
something is information, the closest thing the scientific method can get to
the traditional concept of the soul.

> I dispute that position is irrelevant to our discerning of different
> objects.

Liebniz was saying that if the objects in question are identical you can't
even know their position, maybe it's there but maybe it's that identical
thing over there.

> We all know red, just like 11, and just like I, are commonly used as
> nouns.

And God Damn those idiot third grade English teachers!

 John K Clark




_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat






      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster Total Access now 
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080330/f0ec8da5/attachment.html>