> > Your position is irrational in thinking that there's an original
>> "consciousness" that is permanently destroyed in the process.
>
>Your denial of the destruction of the instance of consciousness is what's
>irrational here, but don't worry, I'm not going to start calling you
>intellectually dishonest, just stubborn.
:) Ya know, Jason - I like you. You're a good guy.
> Mine
>> is irrational in thinking that the continuity of my original or my
>> copy matters at all.
>
>Matters at all? To who? Certainly it matters to you.
Sure, but there's no logical imperative below that upon which I can
build. The structure may be logical above that point, but it seems
to be floating in the air on my personal preference.
You can't say that the argument is logical "because it matters to
me"; or at least it seems to me that you can't. At some point you'd
need to tie it to some logical imperative in the universe or
something. I know of know logical imperative in the universe.
Without a logical imperative in the universe, my wanting something is
about as logical as the Perl program's will to live below. You could
run it (barring syntax errors) on any reasonably configured UNIX box.
#!/usr/bin/perl
while (1) {
print "Type 'quit' to end this program's execution: ";
$input = <STDIN>;
chomp($input);
print "No, I want to live!\n" if $input eq 'quit';
}
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