--- firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Michael writes:
> > Just because I cannot predict the outcome of an experiment, is a
> > reason for caution.
> > That I could not tell the difference AFTER the experiment is no
> > guarantee that it worked the way I would have liked.
(because it may be a "different" "I")
> It's not really an experiment if it gives you no information, is
True. That's the problem.
> You know the outcome beforehand.
But the point is we don't. The bind is, if the technology makes a
perfect physical copy AND you believe that a "duplicate" mind will
necessarily be "generated" by the copy, you will have no way of
checking (as an external observer), neither would the subject.
> > Like Mr Lorrey, I would like to believe in transporters, I'm just
> > sure I can.
> How can you decide?
I don't know. Neither does anybody else though, I suspect :)
> Suppose you lived in a world where everyone used them. Would that
> a difference?
Good questions, which I've wondered about. Obviously one would feel
more confident with technology that is familiar.
If I had previously used one, the "current" me might still want to
Familiarity with a system is NOT grounds for total trust! People have
been duped by familar systems before, from department store foot
X-rays to unsafe email!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:27 MDT