From: Lee Corbin (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2008 - 22:03:56 MDT
Jeff writes to John Clark and me
> [John wrote]
>> word "identical" in the term "identical twins" is misnamed. They should
>> be called "similar twins". Their personalities were not identical
>> either, certainly both could provide a long list of faults that their
>> twin has, faults that of course they themselves lacked. They are two
>> distinct individuals no argument.
> I don't know why you and Lee both thought that I was saying that
> identical twins were not distinct individuals.
Because they're *so much* less identical than physical duplicates,
we thought it a weak attack.
> My whole point is that you should not treat two distinct
> individuals like they're the same person. Lee is trying to
> treat his copies as if they are the same person,
Yes, I am.
> when they are different distinct individuals.
John and I might retort that if duplicates were "distinct individuals"
then teleporting with a micro-second delay might seem hazardous
(perhaps not to you, but to some).
As you know, I go even further and if one of my copies had to
die, they wouldn't particularly care which, so long as some ample
reward to the remaining ones was provided.
I still would appreciate John Clark answering this question:
For ten million dollars, would you agree to be instantly
and painlessly (except for possible "psychological"
(irrational) "pain") disintegrated, so that an exact
duplicate of you made ten seconds ago can be reanimated
and learn that the money has been deposited to the John K.
Clark bank account?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT