X-Message-Number: 21243 From: Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:36:14 EST Subject: HUH? --part1_29.39b31b94.2b8aed2e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply to: Michael Price By: David Pizer David Pizer originally 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. Mike said: 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. David's Reply: One person's rock-solid premises are another person's assumptions. I don't understand your comment above. I think my premises are true, the logic valid, and the argument sound. However, I would appreciate if you can point out that one of my premises are false, (and why) or show me where the logic does not follow. Keep in mind that I am a philosophy Student, not an expert so don't assume that I know too much about philosophy, (explain for the beginner). Mike Said: The notion that an individual has "died", even though a copy persists is a non-operational statement. In Ayer's terminology it is a meaningless or metaphysical statement, as distinct from empirical statements or tautologies (such as 1+1=2) which are both in principle verifiable. David's reply: Why is it non-operation? I don't know about Ayer's terminology. In my philosophy class, the professor is teaching us that every major philosopher of the past has had some problems with his/her philosophy. (doesn't mean these guys weren't smart - just that sometimes we find out our old heroes were wrong about all or part of their thinking.) If, say, Mike Perry, (he wants to make copies of himself), had a copy of himself made and someone killed the original Mike Perry, the original Mike Perry is dead. Since my logic seems to prove a copy is not the original, then I would assume Mike Perry is dead. Mike said: Ask yourself this, how could you ever, even in principle, test the notion of individual survival being dependent on physical continuity? It can't be done and is therefore a meaningless concept. David's Reply: Perhaps it has never been done; "Never been done, yet" does not mean "Can't be done." But I think an individual's survival IS totally dependent on physical continuity. A person is a unique, continuing process; by that definition, continuity is all that counts. I guess a conclusion here is totally dependent on how one defines a person. I like my definition best. It just happens to be a lot like Ettingers, so that makes me even more confident in it. You have not convinced me, but keep trying. If there is a flaw in this reasoning I want to know it, if there isn't this reasoning may have important ramifications in the future. David --part1_29.39b31b94.2b8aed2e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21243