Re: IDENTITY-What it means to be 'me'

From: Mark Walker (
Date: Thu Dec 06 2001 - 21:56:17 MST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn O'regan" <>
To: "'Extropy (E-mail)'" <>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:02 PM
Subject: FW: IDENTITY-What it means to be 'me'

> >as a Parfitian which
> >would you prefer: a) To live another say 50 years (a "normal" life
> span), or
> >b) die tomorrow and be replaced by an identical copy that will 1000
> years?
> >(Obviously, for some functionalist at least the choice is simply
> whether to
> >live 50 or 1000 years. I have phrased the question so as not to beg the
> >question against Parfitians et. al). I think most of us, no matter
> where we
> >fall on the continuum you outline would take b, although I would be
> curious
> >to hear from those that would take a.
> I've got to agree with Damien on this one. 50 years sounds better than
> tomorrow.
> Why? Because I have a big attachment to "me", whatever that is, but as to
> patterns of atoms and/or information which are strongly or even exactly
> like me? I couldn't care less. Well, I'd probably actually care a bit
> most other people out there (I really do like people a lot), but there are
> limits.
Has that hot Aussi sun hardboiled yours and Damien's brains? ;) Ok now put
on the skis because here we go down the slippery slope.
Would you prefer 2 more years as "you" or a 1000 years of doppelgangerhood?
(Hint: think of the wife and the kids). Personally, I would take the 1000
rather than the 50 but I can't say that I have no attachment to the present
set of molecules. I would probably take 999.5 years with the present set as
opposed to 1000 as a doppelganger, which probably means I am not as pure a
functionalist as I could be, but I am not sure how much more I would be
willing to sacrifice.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:24 MDT