Re: David Gerrold - War with the Cthorr

In article <g030dk$k4j$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
William December Starr <wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <g025r5$frf$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>mchary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Michael Alan Chary) said:
>
>> In article <g00ee9$b2l$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> William December Starr <wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> "louann_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <louann_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>
>>>> Suppose that part of the copying process involves the copyee being
>>>> unconscious. You wake up with another 'you' and both of you insist
>>>> you're the real one. How do we test your two claims?
>>>
>>> You don't.  They're both true.
>>
>> I appreciate that you have some difficulty with the notion of the
>> soul, but surely even you must realize that your claim is
>> philosophically inept.
>
>If you're basing that on the difference between (1) "I am really
>Fred" and (2) "I am the real Fred," then yes, they can't both be
>right when making the latter claim.  In fact, _neither_ can be
>right, since the claim implies that there is one, exclusive, real
>Fred, and that isn't true.  But if they both make the former claim
>-- "I am really Fred" -- then both are making true claims.
>(Unless the guy who was duplicated wasn't named Fred, of course.)
>
>If you mean something else, I don't know what it is.

I'm basing it on the fact that there is a psyche made up of experiences. A

copy on me wouldn't have the experience of being born from my mother's 
womb. It's not merely whether *you* think that you are you. There's a 
social element to you. A copy would have a different set of social 
reaction to it even if not from it. That would affect its ability to deal 
in the real world.

-- 
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons