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