X-Message-Number: 11760
From: 
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 21:19:03 EDT
Subject: Norton, Crevier, zombies & philosophers

Brook Norton today (May 15 Cryonet) gave us a clever approach to the "zombie" 
question with the example of an oscillating steel rod and its simulation by a 
computer. This was in response to various posts by Daniel Crevier intended to 
show that a simulation is equivalent to the original. I will not reproduce 
the posts here.

I don't think his example actually proves anything, because the disagreement 
between the two camps is one of premises, not of conclusions from an agreed 
premise. Mr. Crevier's premise, essentially, is that if it looks like a duck 
it's a duck; and underlying this is the deeper premise that isomorphism is 
everything. Mr. Norton's premise is that if it is physically different then 
it isn't the same thing, or a description of a thing is not the thing.

What we are really talking about is appropriate criteria of survival, and 
hanging out there also is the quantitative postulate,  that survival is a 
matter of degree--and carried to its logical conclusion, this implies that if 
anything about you survives, then you have partly survived, which brings us 
back to the quaint notion that you can "live on" in your works or in your 
children etc., in contrast to the criterion of Woody Allen, who says "I want 
to live on in my apartment." 

By the way, out of curiosity: Is there anyone out there who, after forming an 
opinion on this or any "philosophical" issue, has ever changed his mind 
because of a persuasive argument? As far as I recall, not a single one of the 
published philosophers has ever changed his opinion, even after decades of 
argument.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11760