Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If computationalism is true, then a person is instantiated by all > equivalent computations. If you change one instantiation to something > inequivalent, then that instantiation no longer "instantiates" the > person. The person continues to exist, as long as there remain valid > computations somewhere in the universe. And in almost any of the many > worlds variants we consider in this list, that will be true.
That's true, but even with the MWI, making an instantiation cease to exist decreases the measure of that person. Around here we call that "murder". The moral question still exists. I don't see the MWI as rescuing functionalism and computationalism. What, after all, do these principles mean? They say that the implementation substrate doesn't matter. You can implement a person using neurons or tinkertoys, it's all the same. But if there is no way in principle to tell whether a system implements a person, then this philosophy is meaningless since its basic assumption has no meaning. The MWI doesn't change that. Hal Finney --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
