X-Message-Number: 26623 Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:52:02 -0700 Subject: Mental Tangles From: <> Flavonoid wrote: > RBR tries, in an earlier post in today's queue, to make a > distinction between 'physical entities' such as people and > apples, and "arrangements" such as a printed document one > can hold in one's hand, by use of the following definition: Actually, the definition establishes the meaning of continued existence, which also clarifies what it means to say that something like, 'I am the original Richard, while my copy over there is not.' The definition was not intended to make a distinction between people and documents. More generally I see you have misunderstood me on multiple levels. I will try to clarify my view in this message. > Having to confess that is pretty elegant, I must also ask if it > was written specifically to lend credence to the dubious concept > that an apple has some original quality to it that a word > processor printed document does not, Ignore the concept of originality since it seems to be causing so many problems for you. Instead, focus on the concept of sameness of identity. Is this the same apple I left on the countertop yesterday? Am I the same person I was before going to bed last night? etc. My distinction between documents and apples was not between *printed* documents (i.e. pieces of paper with words on them), but between 'virtual' documents that reside in computer memory. Such a 'document' does not exist. Rather, what exists is a magnetic disk. You interpret the spins of the electrons on that disk to be a document. Hence, it is a 'virtual' document and not something that really exists, like you or I, an apple, or a printed copy of the Times. > purely conceptual. I also happen to think that any "originality" > attributable to an apple or a human, is also purely conceptual. Again, ignore the concept of originality and focus on the concept of continued existence---i.e. sameness of identity. Imagine I murder you and am duplicated in such a way that when me and my duplicate awake, there are no obvious indications of which one is the duplicate. Did my duplicate commit the murder? No. I committed the murder---my duplicate is mistaken in his belief that he committed the murder, just as he is mistaken in his belief that he is the original me. The 'original me' has a very precise definition, which allows one to differentiate between me and a copy of me. More generally, the concept of identity for real-world objects let's me make such statements as, 'I went jogging this morning,' even though the configuration of atoms comprising the Richard-bounded region is different than what it was earlier today (at the time I was jogging). > Twin birth, cloning, etc. can create essentially identical humans. > Why not also call them "arrangements"? Mr. RBR, you are merely > guilty of the fallacy of Argument by Definition. Clearly, you missed my post entirely. I suggest re-reading after you finish digesting this message. Hopefully, you will gain a better understanding of what I was trying to say. Richard B. Riddick Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26623