[extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution?
jef at jefallbright.net
Mon Oct 16 14:33:54 UTC 2006
Slawomir, it appears this would have been a good opportunity to
paraphrase your understanding of what the other person is trying to say,
rather than responding with the shallow implication that he's being
John is making a hugely important point that many people don't grasp,
that *all meaning* is subjective. Some people misinterpret this to mean
*all knowledge* is subjective, and either (1) go to the postmodernist
extreme of absolute relativism, or (2) take righteous umbrage in defense
of (increasingly) objective scientific practice. Either reaction would
be missing the point.
John also points out that you repeatedly offer circular definitions;
such behavior being the crux of both cognitive dissonance and endlessly
In a discussion such as this, one would hope to clearly highlight the
differences between two points of view, to be left for resolution in the
(indefinite) future as each person's knowledge base converges on an
increasingly accurate model of reality.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:06 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution?
> John K Clark:
> > Astronomically more important than objectivity is
> subjectivity, if you
> > think feel and have person B memories then you are person B. And if
> > God disagrees then God can stick it where the sun don't shine.
> Subjectivity is more important than objectivity? So,
> according to you, the truth is what *you* want or feel is the
> truth? If so, then you are nothing more than a faith-based
> scientist and you should stop talking to me.
> >> the reason why a duplicate isn't the original is because the
> >> duplicate doesn't extend the original's ability to access reality
> >> after original is dead.
> John K Clark:
> > Translation: The copy isn't the original because he isn't
> the original
> > and he isn't the original because he's not the original. That is to
> > say, the copy doesn't have those same sacred atoms that
> Heartland can
> > distinguish from all other atoms in the observable universe
> but that
> > the scientific method can not.
> I guess you can't stop yourself from inventing these moronic
> interpretations, can you? It's hard for me to believe that
> you actually believe in the majority of stuff you write. I'm
> sorry that I can't reward you with more attention for this silliness.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat