> > My brain has been replaced atom by atom my whole life. Pretending
>> that there's a real difference if it happened much faster or even all
>> at once would seem to be an intellectual dishonesty.
>
>Definitely no. Damnit Chris, why do you have to pull this "intellectual
>dishonesty" stunt again?
I'm just a bad boy that way.
>Of course there's a real difference. As we've repeatedly stated, the
>substrate doesn't matter-- you can replace every neuron in my brain with a
>synthetic one, and I'd be as pleased as punch, as long as you do so in a
>fashion that preserves my original reality experiencer. In your prior post,
>you -had- correctly identified the nature of the disagreement-- why are you
>falling back to this position now?
There's no "falling back". Just because I understand our core
disagreements doesn't mean that I think that they're both rational.
Actually, neither is rational. That same post that you mentioned
also admits to the irrationality of my own position. I called it a
"sentimentality", but it amounts to the same thing.
Your position is irrational in thinking that there's an original
"consciousness" that is permanently destroyed in the process. Mine
is irrational in thinking that the continuity of my original or my
copy matters at all.
Pick your favorite flavor of irrationality and enjoy.
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 - 09:50:36 MDT