Sure, that's fair and I'll admit it was too strong to say based simply on the physical/conceptual opposition that you were in disagreement with the quote. However, based on what little I know of your viewpoint, it's a big - tho perhaps not insuperable - stumbling block that you'd need to carefully address. — csalisbury
Does a turtle remain the same turtle throughout it's life? — csalisbury
Re just addressing one thing, yeah, I was starting the one-point-at-a-time approach so that stuff wouldn't get overlooked. Then YOU dropped it when I made it clear that your objections had nothing to do with the idea of connections between Alex @T1 and Alex @T2 (I asked you what your example had to do with that, and you said "nothing")--but that was what I was talking about. — terrapin
You cited causality as a way of understanding why T1 Alex has good reason to be nervous about T2 Alex's suffering. Since the executioner is also causally responsible for T2 Alex's anguish, yet has no reason himself to worry about suffering that anguish, then pointing to causality doesn't explain why T1 alex's anxiety is justified. — me
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.