On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com
<mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
<stath...@gmail.com <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett
<bhkellet...@gmail.com <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou
<stath...@gmail.com <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett
<bhkellet...@gmail.com <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via
Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote:
> On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> I don't find that answer convincing,
because of the implicit dualist
>> assumption. A perfectly reasonable answer
to the question asked the
>> night before duplication is: "I won't be in
a room tomorrow morning,
>> because when I am duplicated with 100
continuers, I cease to exist and
>> each of the continuers becomes a new,
separate person. This is because
>> there is a tie among the continuers, with
no closest continuer. In
>> that situation, the original ceases, and
the continuers are separate
>> persons."
>>
>> Now you might not like this answer, but it
is perfectly coherent and
>> rational. It has the great advantage that
it avoids the stench of
>> dualism that hangs over your theory.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> The tie will be broken by small random
fluctuations in the physical
> states of the copies.
Dualism would imply that one and only one of
the duplicates has your
soul and is "you". I see no problem is just
saying they are Bruce
Kellet-1, Bruce Kellet-2,... Bruce
Kellet-100. They all remember the
bet, and assuming their stake is duplicated
too, they each either get
$100 or lose $25. The existence of more than
one Bruce Kellet certainly
creates problems in law and language. But law
and language are invented
to deal with reality, not define it.
You are right about what dualism implies. So if
you ask the question of the person the night
before duplication, it has no answer unless you
assume dualism. I think you are right about
multiple BKs: BK1, BK2,... and so on. These are
different persons who share some memories with the
BK of the night before. Closest continuer theory
works well in these duplication scenarios, despite
the fact that people on this list seem averse to
that theory for some undefined reason.
You could say that any suggestion that one of the BK's
is a continuation of the original, even when there is
only one BK extant at any time, implies dualism.
Not on the closest continuer theory. If there is a tie,
there is no unique closest continuer. If there is only one
continuer, he is necessarily the closest. Dualism is not
required.
But why should the closest continuer be a continuation of the
person rather than the next-closest continuer, unless the soul
has a preference for it?
Be a dualist if you want to. But the closest continuer theory is a
convention designed to resolve questions of personal identity in
cases of personal duplication, absent a "soul". Arbitrary random
selections are not as satisfactory.
I'm not a dualist. I think there is no metaphysical basis for
continuity of identity, it is just a psychological construct.
Realistically (sort of) in the duplication of Bruce there will be
millions of errors in each copy. There would be no point in trying to
make them any more accurate. That would certainly be good enough to
fool his closest friends and family. So at the molecular level there
will certainly be a unique closest continuer. But I can't see that it
makes any difference. That's just as arbitrary as denominating the
first one to open his door the REAL Bruce.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/32626617-eefa-fe90-74b1-9dbbf13b8283%40verizon.net.