m <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wrote:
>*I* (this instance of me, if you like) go to step into the
> transporter. This instance of me would like to know that this
> instance of me will step out of the other end.
"This" instance of you will NOT step out of the transporter, "That"
instance of you will. You concede that Mr.That is perfectly happy
but you worry about Mr.This, and because he is no longer around you
can't ask his opinion of the results. Well, this sort of thing happens
every day. The John Clark of yesterday no longer exists, but I
remember being him so in my opinion he has survived. However I
must admit I have no way of asking the John Clark of yesterday if
he is as happy with the results as I am. I just don't worry about it.
> Come on, I've been around as some kind of conscious assemblage
>for a fair number of years, irrespective of what I took into myself at
Exactly, and the only conclusion to draw from that is atoms are not important.
>There is continuity of experience even as we change, no?
>This is what I trying to say with the space-time line idea.
I don't see how you could draw a space-time line of a human body,
you'd have to include every particle that had ever been or would ever
be part of it. It would be like trying to draw one for an ocean wave.
An ocean wave may be very impressive to look at and it might travel for
thousands of miles, but although not exactly untrue to say a wave is made
of atoms is very misleading. No water molecule travels long distances
because of the wave, in fact in deep water a particle simply moves in a
vertical circle with a radius of a foot or two and it ends up right back where
it started. How are you going to draw a space-time line for that?
John K Clark email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:26 MDT