Stephen,
you've hit a nerve with *'copying':*
**
*Fundamental *questions:
*1.WHO *(what) is copying and *HOW*?
2.*INTO* what(?) is copying being done?
Then are continuing questions:
3. Does the 'COPY' (to be considerably identical) have identical
interconnective circumstances as does the
Stathis,
I usually appreciate the wisdom in your posts. Now I have a retort:
...What I find incoherent is the idea
that the psychological properties might be able to be duplicated but
nevertheless there is no continuity of identity because the soul
cannot be duplicated.
If you accept the topic
On 20 Feb 2009, at 14:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/2/20 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Review of a book that may be of interest to the list.
Brent Meeker
Original Message
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
2009-02-26 : View this Review Online
Hi Bruno,
will incorporate your changes as soon as time permits :-)
Best Wishes,
Günther
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Günther,
Nice work Günther. Now my comment is longer than I wish. I really would
insist on one change. See (**) below.
On 16 Feb 2009, at 22:54, Günther Greindl wrote:
2009/2/23 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Stathis,
I usually appreciate the wisdom in your posts. Now I have a retort:
...What I find incoherent is the idea
that the psychological properties might be able to be duplicated but
nevertheless there is no continuity of identity because the soul
2009/2/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
From a logical point of view Shoemaker is right. You can say no for
many reasons to the doctor.
The copy will not even behave as you.
The copy will behave like you, but is a phi-zombie.
The copy behaves like you and as a
Hi Stathis, Bruno, List,
the copy can be you in deeper and deeper senses (roughly speaking up
to the unspeakable you = ONE).
I talk here on the first person you. It is infinite and unnameable.
Here computer science can makes those term (like unnameable) much
more precise.
I don't see how
7 matches
Mail list logo
