Just because the original is destroyed does not make the copy an original. I always have a problem with these kind of ideas, because it is clear to me that a copy of me is not me. One book I read about interstellar teleportation made that clear because the original after being copied just went about his life. The copies did not like that because they were in dangerous situations while the original bragged about all the things his copies were doing without such danger affecting him personally.
-- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- frank theriault wrote: > On 7/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In a message dated 7/13/2006 9:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> So the >> limit between painting and photography is not really too clear. >> Regards >> >> Jens Bladt >> ======= >> Definitely. Agreed. Big time. > > Nope. Gotta agree with Bob on this one. The difference between > photography and painting is quite clear. Photography (in this sense) > is an image derived from the momentary capture of light on an > electronic or chemical sensor. Painting is the application of > chemical substance on a surface. The fact that the results can > sometimes look somewhat similar in no way makes the processes > analogous. > > It kind of reminds me of the difference between sending a television > image from one place to another, as opposed to teleporting that same > object. Like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or Star Trek. > They're two different concepts entirely, and can't be confused > (although Willie Wonka confused them). > > cheers, > frank > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
