Jason Joel Thompson <jasonjthompson@home.com> Wrote:
> "The Original" is a reference to the accumulated movement of a -particular-
> pattern through time
Ok fine, but using that definition why can't "The Original" be "The Copy",
why can't the pattern move from one to the other? For that matter, why can't
there be two "Originals" if pattern defines the concept as you say, after all a
pattern is made of information and information can be duplicated.
> Only because you've killed the insider. A fine solution.
Yes I think it's a fine solution too because there is no injured party.
Death means having a last thought and in this case you didn't have one,
your thoughts went on uninterrupted.
>My particular pattern does not have a contiguous experience
I'm not sure what you mean by contiguous experience but your subjective
experience is certainly continuous, I could make a copy of you, destroy
"The Original" wait a thousand years and then activate "The Copy" and you'd
never notice any interruption, at least not until you looked at the external world.
>and frankly, I couldn't care less (literally: couldn't) if my identical copy is
>happy with how things turned out.
You're wrong, I know for a fact you do care because you see you are that copy,
I just made you 10 seconds ago.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT