FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-22-2002, 02:51 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Montreal, QC Canada
Posts: 876
Post

But since determinism is mostly true, there is no need to quabble. If materialism was not true, then there would be no point in discussing it.
Francois Tremblay is offline  
Old 02-22-2002, 03:45 PM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

No, because Bob2 cannot talk. He has no memories. He is a new being, created ex nihilo.

Now, if you had a copying process, and could duplicate everything from memories down to the exact positions of the quarks in Bob2's atoms, then maybe. But maybe not.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 02-22-2002, 05:35 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Post

Well, my answer assumed a copying process - cloning would require require years to produce a Bob2, who would simply be a younger identical twin.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>
tronvillain is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 02:53 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Darwin
Posts: 1,466
Wink

Materialism is important if you are a coin collector. After all you would not want forged copy even it it is perfect
Quote:
Originally posted by Franc28:
<strong>But since determinism is mostly true, there is no need to quabble. If materialism was not true, then there would be no point in discussing it.</strong>
crocodile deathroll is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 03:42 AM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Montreal, QC Canada
Posts: 876
Post

I'm not sure how it would be less valuable to have a perfect copy of a coin instead of the original. We don't collect them because of their identity, but rather because of their nature (perhaps collectors would disagree with me).
Francois Tremblay is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 04:09 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Post

crocodile deathtroll:
Quote:
Materialism is important if you are a coin collector. After all you would not want forged copy even it it is perfect.
If it was actually perfect, I don't see why.
tronvillain is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 11:16 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 808
Post

Its the rare nature of a coin that makes it valuable.

This is basic supply-demand of the sort they teach in highschool.

If there where a lot of perfect copies, no matter how perfect, the value would go down.

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>
Christopher Lord is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 11:38 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,597
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by Franc28:
<strong>I'm not sure how it would be less valuable to have a perfect copy of a coin instead of the original. We don't collect them because of their identity, but rather because of their nature (perhaps collectors would disagree with me).</strong>
They would (to a point)

What would it mean to have a "perfect copy"? A very important factor in the valuation of any collectible is its provenance. That is, its historical record. Many times on object is valued because it is the only such object, or because it has a unique provenance (like being owned by a famous person). I'm not sure that such things could be "perfectly copied".

So, sometimes objects are collected because of their particular identity, rather than their material composition.

Anyway, to keep this on topic, my own feeling on the OP is that the reactions of the two "bobs" to any external stimuli would most likely be identical only in the moments immediately following the "separation". The longer the temporal distance, the more opportunities for unique internal and external stimuli that would produce rapidly diverging results.

Regards,

Bill Snedden
Bill Snedden is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 01:39 PM   #19
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 151
Question

Quick question for Jonny:

Would you say that the response the materialists are giving implies that one or both of the Bobs has no "free will"?
JB01 is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 01:41 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Darwin
Posts: 1,466
Post

If the mind is matter, which is strongly suspect is true, then the Bob2 copy with all its quarks arranged in the same configuration should be the same Bob with the same memories as Bob1. Bob1 will only have to be destroyed before Bob2 is awakened. But then Bob2 one will only become Bob1
Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
<strong>No, because Bob2 cannot talk. He has no memories. He is a new being, created ex nihilo.

Now, if you had a copying process, and could duplicate everything from memories down to the exact positions of the quarks in Bob2's atoms, then maybe. But maybe not.

Michael</strong>
crocodile deathroll is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.