Re: This is just a copy

Randall R Randall (
Mon, 6 Jul 1998 17:13:36 -0400

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT) John K Clark <> writes:
> (Randall R Randall) Mon, 6 Jul 1998
> >This seems to me to be a very common mistake. :) The music
> >*isn't* the "same"; it is only very similar. That is, they are

> >not really one piece of music, but two, that happen to differ
> >only in location. They do differ, though.
>This is completely wrong, that is say that the E mail message you sent
>contained erroneous ideas, I have no way of knowing if the original
>you typed on your computer was right or wrong because I never saw it,
all I
>saw was a copy and that's just not the same thing.

Since you assume that the copy of the
email that you have is an exact copy,
you may assume that it is exactly
similar to my copy of the original email. :)

> >I will agree with this. There is no way to tell the
>If there is no way to tell the difference then what makes you think
there is
>a difference?

If the upload (or copying) is done in a way that *could* have left the original undestroyed, then the upload is a copy. That is to say, I would agree that an upload done cell by cell, over a conscious period of time, is the same individual after the upload. But if it is conducted in such a way that there could be *two* people who are exactly similar, *at least* one of them is not the original. Given this, a scan made of my brain and then uploaded is a *version* of me, but is not me in the same way that the person who will be having my dinner later is me.

> >Of course, if the CDs themselves are expected to be aware, then


> >first CD will never know it is "offline", any more than other
> >people know that they are dead.
>For some reason in these thought experiments people always identify with
>"original", just for fun imagine what it's like to be the "copy". You
>have been created only 5 minutes age but it doesn't matter because you
>the memories of Randall R Randall, you remember being the Randall R
>Randall of yesterday

Agreed so far.

>so the Randall R Randall of yesterday is not dead. Death
>means having a last thought and Randall R Randall hasn't had one of

This is what I disagree with. *This* R^3 *may have* had a last thought. This reminds me of my geometry classes in the eighties. If you have a triangle on the paper in front of you, you can create a triangle with all of the same measurements, as exactly as you'd like. This triangle is *similar* to the original, but since we can see the original beside it, it is clear that they are not the same triangle. They differ only in location, but they do differ.

BTW, what if it becomes possible to copy all of a person's memories and insert them in other people? Does this mean that the person who created the memories is effectively immortal? Can he shoot himself without dying?

>I probably haven't convinced you but I'll bet I could have if only you'd
>my original message, it was great and would have really knocked your
>socks off but unfortunately you'll just have to settle for a copy.

Aw, shucks. :)
BTW, this is an excellent reason (IMO, of course) to disapprove of "intellectual property", which I do, for the same reasons that I want *this* copy of me to survive.


     448cHDsBCQQuz8tsorT4BXVFHGtHyjnkpz7/Op1F8 | ICQ: 3043097 E-Gold Acct: 100678 @
On a visible but distant shore a new image of man, The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.

                                                | Johnny Clegg

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]