> This is the central element that keeps most of us intrigued with this
> question. Why can the other side not see such obvious and basic concepts?
> Why can't each side explain what they mean in simple terms that are accepted
> by the opposing side? Why are there so many intelligent people on both
> sides of the issue, when the issue seems so obvious to everybody?
I think many people engange in the mental masturbation exercise of
asking what "I" means to avoid the difficult, but meaningful, questions:
What is it that you want? What is it that you fear?
All of the thought experiments suggested in these arguments are
interesting setups, but again they just ask the wrong question at
the end. The question is not, given some bizzare scenario, which
of the physical things or processes involved is "me". That's
just a matter of which definition you pick. The question to ask
is "out of all the likely, measurable, visible results of the
situation, which do we consider desirable, and which do we consider
undesirable? And how can we achieve more of the former and less of
the latter?
I don't think there's anyone here who will rationally argue
with the contention that if I underwent a non-destructive
atom-by-atom copy process, two 100-kg lumps of matter would wake
up with the memeories I presently call "mine", as well as the
sensations, perceptions, values, desires, and intentions I call
mine. It doesn't matter to me which one I call "me", what
matters is what actual consequences will this action have on
the world, are they likely to happen in the future, and which
of them are good and bad?
What it is that we want? What is it that we fear?
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:26 MDT