On 11/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Lee Corbin</b> <<a href="mailto:lcorbin@rawbw.com">lcorbin@rawbw.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Of course, it's a matter of degree, but: change your beliefs,<br><br>But isn't it an exaggeration to say that who you were at 16 was not<br>the same person that you were at 13? Identity consists of more than<br>just beliefs, even in your case, wouldn't you agree?
<br></blockquote></div><br>I think the matter of degree is illustrated between the comparison of the 16 year old to his 'current' self vs. his 13 yr old self. The moment-to-moement change in state is negligible compared to the net effect of 3 years worth of changes. It seems a problem arises when the absolute change from moment to moment is regarded as two different identities, with the whole "killing your earlier self" craziness.
<br><br>I see the definition of self inclusive of the entire time dimension as inherent to object model being examined. Comparing PI models at t=1 vs t=2 or t=3600 is as arbitrary and confusing as talking about the artistic value of a painting at x=0, y=0 vs x=1, y=1. So if the PI model includes the temporal dimension, isn't the model going to be inherently inclusive of the process of state-change?
<br><br>(I haven't even started thinking about the various clone situations in this context)<br>