X-Message-Number: 21224 From: "michaelprice" <> References: <> Subject: Why a duplicate cannot be the original - the final proof! .... Not Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:27:47 -0000 David Pizer wrote: > 4. THEREFORE, a duplicate is not the original. > > THEREFORE, destroying/killing the original and letting the duplicate > survive results in the death (non-survival) of the original and therefore > duplication is not a viable form of survival for any original. Sorry Dave, even if we grant premise 4, the above conclusion does not follow from it. You have merely crammed all your assumptions into the final leap. The notion that an individual has "died", even though a copy persists is a non-operational statement. In Ayer's terminology it is a meanlingless or metaphysical statement, as distinct from empirical statements or tautologies (such as 1+1=2) which are both in principle verifiable. Ask yourself this, how could you ever, even in principle, test the notion of individual survival being dependent on phyical continuity? It can't be done and is therefore a meaningless concept. Cheers, Michael C Price ---------------------------------------- http://mcp.longevity-report.com http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21224