From: Lee Corbin (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2008 - 16:05:27 MDT
> A person might agree that anyone sufficiently similar to
> themselves is "me", but when faced with a copy in the
> same room revise the definition to specify that it isn't
> "me" if it occupies a different volume of space at a
> particular time. Who is to say that the new definition
> is wrong?
There will only be a small window of future time in which
such a view is maintainable. As soon as one can quickly
and easily merge the memories of two extremely similar
selves, you will *remember* that you were at both sides
of that room at the same time.
Then imagine copying and merging at a furious rate. It
will seem crazy to believe that another copy isn't you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT