hedonologist2

Hmmm. You mean how people fill in many of the blanks of what they are "unsure" of with things their culture told them? If so, is that really being egocentric or is it more like cultural bigotry?
Who? How come?
I'm glad it entertained you.

We share more in common than we do with anyone else. People give me credit or disapproval for things he has done. It is guilt by association, in a way. Maybe they have to do this. Maybe there is no other way of controlling people. On the other hand, if a person really believes they are not who they were in a different circumstance, they might be freed of a vicious cycle of guilt and psychologically allowed to change.

BTW, it is not necessarily more than a coincidence that my named changed. I forgot that they send you a password when you submit a new email addy and I wasn't using the old one anymore.

hedonologist2

Yes. The first issue was how does a belief in materialism together with a preference to survive affect behavior differently than a belief in mind-body dualism together with a preference to survive?

If a self is an arrangement of matter, how does one distinguish a self from the rest of mater or distinguish how a self is preserved through time? This question may seem nebulous unless you consider the affect on behavior.
Are you asking "which philosophical issue?"

hedonologist2

I have been talking about a perfect copy as a hypothetical idea, so I don't understand why you would ask that.

I suppose what would make a real copy sufficiently perfect would depend on how any minute differences may affect our subjective preferences. If you use a photocopier and the image is legible would this be a perfect copy?

John Page

Hedonologist & Copy

Sorry, I thought we were discussing a perfect hypothetical copy, not a hypothetically perfect copy.

Mind you, we'd have to start with a perfect original.

1sec

I was on the point of saying that Mario Puzo's remark (aproximate quote) "If the human brain functioned according to simple laws the brain would be too simple to understand them" can provide a "real" philosophical issue.

But now that you have pointed it out so straight for me, it is all clear.

Consequetly, I do not what to praise first,
the originality of the initial question,
or the ingenuousity of the others in turning it into a perfectely legitimate philosophical question.