From: Stathis Papaioannou (stathisp@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2008 - 00:40:56 MST
On 09/03/2008, Lee Corbin <lcorbin@rawbw.com> wrote:
> The criterion is sufficient similarity of structure, just as for
> everything else. An object is a rabbit if its DNA is close
> enough, and if it is morphologically close enough. Naturally
> there is no precise dividing line, but please don't say that
> anyone is free to call anything a rabbit (without being
> very, very wrong, absolutely wrong).
A person might agree that anyone sufficiently similar to themselves is
"me", but when faced with a copy in the same room revise the
definition to specify that it isn't "me" if it occupies a different
volume of space at a particular time. Who is to say that the new
definition is wrong?
-- Stathis Papaioannou
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT