> > Being new to extropy, and having just begun thinking about this
>> subject, I've been trying to decide how I feel about this whole
>> cloning/uploading/backup thing.
>
>Some of us have been thinking about/debating/discussing/analyzing this
>subject for a -very- long time.
I mentioned that only to say, "Hey, I know how you body-lovers feel.
I haven't been thinking about being a cyborg for so long that I've
forgotten about existence as a human being and all of the instincts
that it entails." Some might find that statement of value in
relating to what I was saying, some might not. As I had mentioned, I
was just stating some conclusions, not a whole argument.
> > My only further question is why the people in this thread so adverse
>> to backup restoration don't just admit that they're basing their
>> decision upon a subjective sentimental factor and be done with it in
>> a somewhat intellectually honest fashion.
>
>Tsk tsk! You mean: you've decided that attachment to a particular discrete
>experience is subjective sentinmentalism and those who differ should stop
>being intellectually dishonest and just agree with you?
Oh, that'd be a bit egocentric of me. The intellectual dishonesty
exists whether or not I'm around.
>-True- intellectual honesty, Chris, would mandate a recognition of the
>complexity and subtle ramifications of the issues.
I've yet to see anyone show that those complexities and ramifications
are anything but sentimentality. I'd be interested in seeing
otherwise.
> > Instead, I've seen only the use of equivocation for words like
>> "consciousness" and "continuity" in some hopeless effort at
>> maintaining a logical argument.
>
>"Hopeless effort at maintaining a logical argument???" Wow. Those are big
>words. Well, since you have so incisively pierced through my intellectual
>dishonesty and uncovered the hopeless illogic of my arguments, it should be
>exceedingly trivial for you to point out the myriad of intellectual
>discrepencies that I have perpetrated in my equivocal and sentimental
>rationalizing (dare we even call it rational??)
:)
>Even though the many flaws of my reasoning might be ridiculously obvious, I
>invite you to make an actual *argument* -- it is notoriously more
>efficacious at exposing illogic than are unsubstantianted pronouncements of
>enlightenment.
Damnit, I shouldn't be spending the time on this, but okay. Let me
start a new thread on this with your question.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT