<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Ok, <DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I agree, the term 'original' is useless at this point, except perhaps for sentimental value, which is arguably useless as well. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>"Here are two instances of John Clark."</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Now each of them is conscious. Two separate conscious entities, I am assuming.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>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.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>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.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>So both sets of matter are now experiencing life in a johnclarkian way with all of their johnclarkian faculties, etc.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>However:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>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.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>True?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jan 26, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">On 1/26/06, <B class="gmail_sendername">Bret Kulakovich</B> <<A href="mailto:bret@bonfireproductions.com">bret@bonfireproductions.com</A>> wrote:<BR> <DIV><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><SPAN class="q"></SPAN><DIV><SPAN>Even if I re-arrange matter in a <I>johnclarkian</I> way twice, is it John Clark, or John Clark and <I>another</I> John Clark? Two John Clarks.</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR> Is it meaningful to say "This is the original John Clark, and this is a copy?"<BR> <BR> 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"?<BR> <BR> The former is the thread view, the latter is the pattern view.<BR> <BR> - Russell<BR> </DIV></DIV><BR><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">_______________________________________________</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">extropy-chat mailing list</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><A href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</A></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><A href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat</A></DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>