As I understand it, you agree that R1 and R2 would not be the very same individual, even if they were exact copies of each other (i.e., two identical tokens of the same type). That’s the idea I’m trying to convey in my post, but it seems I’m not doing it very well, and I’ve started to doubt myself—whether this is merely a “human language game.”
But it does seem genuinely true: if there are two tokens, then there are two independent “centers of experience” (if we are talking about conscious creatures of course).
And a single token in two locations does not seem physically realizable to me, although my knowledge of physics is fairly limited.
You also say that there are certain intuitions by which one can test or track the identity of objects. I’m not familiar with those ideas, but I’ll definitely look into them—thank you for the link.
Am I correct in understanding that, in the context of my thought experiment about perfect resurrection, you consider it impossible to bring back that very “I”—that very same line of experience, that very same “view from the inside”—whose existence ended with the person’s death?
And regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, I’d be interested to hear why you think so.
As I understand it, you agree that R1 and R2 would not be the very same individual, even if they were exact copies of each other (i.e., two identical tokens of the same type)
I don’t have a single definitive answer to the puzzle of Personal identity.
The traditional solution to the problem of Personal identity is soul theory—there is an unchanging immaterial part of a person which continues through bodily changes. Rationalists reject soulful theory, and expect that the adoption of physicalism, as an alternative, is sufficient to solve the problem.
But there is more than one non-soul theory:
material continuity
pattern continuity
social construction
nihilism (no answer).
Computationalism (a subtype of pattern continuity)
These are clearly different, because they give different answers to the puzzle cases. For example, a form of teletransportation that destructively scans your body at transmission and assembles a new one out of local material would preserve identity by pattern continuity but not by material continuity.
Having said that if you exist in two places, that is evidence that there are two of you...and if the two of you can diverge and become non identical that is further evidence.
I’ve started to doubt myself—whether this is merely a “human language game.”
I’d like to ask the following:
As I understand it, you agree that R1 and R2 would not be the very same individual, even if they were exact copies of each other (i.e., two identical tokens of the same type). That’s the idea I’m trying to convey in my post, but it seems I’m not doing it very well, and I’ve started to doubt myself—whether this is merely a “human language game.”
But it does seem genuinely true: if there are two tokens, then there are two independent “centers of experience” (if we are talking about conscious creatures of course).
And a single token in two locations does not seem physically realizable to me, although my knowledge of physics is fairly limited.
You also say that there are certain intuitions by which one can test or track the identity of objects. I’m not familiar with those ideas, but I’ll definitely look into them—thank you for the link.
Am I correct in understanding that, in the context of my thought experiment about perfect resurrection, you consider it impossible to bring back that very “I”—that very same line of experience, that very same “view from the inside”—whose existence ended with the person’s death?
And regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, I’d be interested to hear why you think so.
I don’t have a single definitive answer to the puzzle of Personal identity.
The traditional solution to the problem of Personal identity is soul theory—there is an unchanging immaterial part of a person which continues through bodily changes. Rationalists reject soulful theory, and expect that the adoption of physicalism, as an alternative, is sufficient to solve the problem.
But there is more than one non-soul theory:
material continuity
pattern continuity
social construction
nihilism (no answer).
Computationalism (a subtype of pattern continuity)
These are clearly different, because they give different answers to the puzzle cases. For example, a form of teletransportation that destructively scans your body at transmission and assembles a new one out of local material would preserve identity by pattern continuity but not by material continuity.
Having said that if you exist in two places, that is evidence that there are two of you...and if the two of you can diverge and become non identical that is further evidence.
What I’ve been calling social construction?