From: Stathis Papaioannou (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2008 - 19:05:52 MDT
On 10/03/2008, Lee Corbin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> There will only be a small window of future time in which
> such a view is maintainable. As soon as one can quickly
> and easily merge the memories of two extremely similar
> selves, you will *remember* that you were at both sides
> of that room at the same time.
> Then imagine copying and merging at a furious rate. It
> will seem crazy to believe that another copy isn't you.
Soon after merging of two similar entities becomes possible, merging
of dissimilar entities will become possible. It may then seem crazy to
deny that We Are All One.
-- Stathis Papaioannou
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 24 2013 - 04:01:07 MDT