From: Jeff L Jones (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2008 - 01:42:52 MDT
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Lee Corbin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Do you
> really expect us to believe that it's identically the
> same to you whether they do it to you or do it
> some random African? You really don't believe
> that there is a fact of the matter?
No, I don't expect you to believe that because it's not the same to me.
I care first and foremost about future people who have my memories and
intentions. After that, I care about people who have similar DNA
and/or similar interests and life perspectives. (Because I find it
easier to identify with such people.) Finally, I care more about
humans than other species, except for perhaps posthumans because they
have such great value to future society. So you see, I am not at all
egalitarian in my caring. However, it is true that on some level I
care enough about every sentient being in order to grant certain basic
respects such as... avoiding torture if at all possible.
The only issue I'm claiming is a language convention is the issue of
whether you label your future self to be the teleported copy of you,
the non-teleported copy of you, or some combination of both to be you.
It's clear what relationship they have to you... they are both copies
of your brain. So I don't think calling either one "you" is going to
tell you anything more interesting. Strictly speaking, I think that a
person should be defined by their past, not their future. Since the
truth is, every person is continuously splitting into multiple
persons, who then experience multiple futures. It just doesn't make
sense to label them all as the same person because they are different
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT