On Jul 4, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Heartland wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death' is
actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good" or
even "truth"; I would define it as the permane
On Jul 4, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Tom McCabe wrote:
--- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Tom McCabe wrote:
So, we die whenever we're put under anesthesia?
No, I don't think so.
But I thought you just defined death as "the cessation
of the process of life". If
Heartland:
I would suggest focusing on definition of life first. Only then one can have a
decent chance at getting the correct definition of death (absence of life).
Life is not just a collection of atoms arranged into a special pattern. It is,
at
least, a spatiotemporal process guided by a sp
Sure, but does it matter if I'm "dead" or "not dead" or
"physiologically dead but not information theoretically dead" between
the time my heart stops and the time when my upload is turned on? I
don't care, as long as the upload works. Although I guess I wouldn't
notice if I was dead and they could
On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death' is
actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good" or
even "truth"; I would define it as the permanent
destruction of a large portion of the inf
I think the debate is not so much over what qualifies
as "alive" as what qualifies as "death". Most people
couldn't care less about whether viruses are "really"
alive, but the death of 150,000 people a day affects
virtually everyone.
- Tom
--- Jey Kottalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/4/07
On 7/4/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
>
> > That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
> > match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death'
> is
> > actually fairly easy to defin
--- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Tom McCabe wrote:
> > --- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
> >>> That definition isn't accurate, because it
> doesn't
> >>> match what we intuitively se
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Tom McCabe wrote:
--- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death'
is
actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good
--- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
>
> > That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
> > match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death'
> is
> > actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good"
> or
> > even "truth"; I wo
On 04/07/07, MindInstance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would suggest focusing on definition of life first. Only then one can have a
decent chance at getting the correct definition of death (absence of life).
Life is not just a collection of atoms arranged into a special pattern. It is,
at
leas
On 04/07/07, Heartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, but Heartland disagrees, and the post was aimed at him and
> others who believe that "a copy isn't really you".
Stathis, I don't subscribe to your assertion that a person after gradual
replacement of atoms in his brain is a copy.
Yes,
On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Tom McCabe wrote:
That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death' is
actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good" or
even "truth"; I would define it as the permanent
destruction of a large portion of the info
On 04/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That definition isn't accurate, because it doesn't
match what we intuitively see as 'death'. 'Death' is
actually fairly easy to define, compared to "good" or
even "truth"; I would define it as the permanent
destruction of a large portion of the
Death isn't just the absence of life; it's the
cessation of life that once existed. The Bootes Void,
so far as we know, has no life at all, and yet nobody
feels it is a great tragedy.
- Tom
--- MindInstance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Objective observers care only about the type of a
> pers
15 matches
Mail list logo
