 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/14 00:56, Warp wrote:
> So am I still the same person, or am I simply an (incomplete) copy of that
> person?
>
You are v1.01 RC1 of the previous version. All that happens is that a
few bugs get ironed out (and a few new ones introduced).
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> On 19/01/2014 12:56 AM, Warp wrote:
> > So am I still the same person, or am I simply an (incomplete) copy of that
> > person?
> What do you feel like, yourself?
I don't feel the same. I have learned new things, I have forgotten things,
I have changed my opinion on some things, and I look different.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> There's a philosophical conundrum from antiquity (which name now
> escapes me): Suppose you have a seaship. During its years of service,
> every time a part breaks it's replaced by a new part. After sufficiently
> time has passed, every single part of the original ship has been replaced
> with a new part. So the question is: Is it still the same ship?
Corollary: You have a rock group called YES. Over the years, band
members come and go, up to the point where none of the original band
members are still in the group. Is that band still YES?
If the four original band members decide to record an album together
again, can they also call themselves YES?
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2014 2:06 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 19/01/2014 12:56 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> So am I still the same person, or am I simply an (incomplete) copy of that
>>> person?
>
>> What do you feel like, yourself?
>
> I don't feel the same. I have learned new things, I have forgotten things,
> I have changed my opinion on some things, and I look different.
>
Okay. But does that not mean that you are only three dimensional?
Are /you/ not the sum of all your selves?
Like and with /time/ *you* move forward, extending yourself, growing,
becoming what you will be.
<That reads like absolute tripe, some new age balderdash.
If you are not the you of your past. Can you beheld responsible for what
you did in the past?>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2014 03:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> If the four original band members decide to record an album together
> again, can they also call themselves YES?
The answer is in the title. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:56:09 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> So am I still the same person, or am I simply an (incomplete) copy of
> that
> person?
>
No you are not the same person, but you are still you. If that makes any
sense :)
This reminds me of the solutions I've seen for a "Beam me up, Scotty"
machine: iirc it would involve replicating a person atom by atom,
destroying the original in the process. Which sounds a bit too much like
murder and cloning all-in-one :S
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.01.2014 13:58, schrieb Doctor John:
> On 19/01/14 00:56, Warp wrote:
>> So am I still the same person, or am I simply an (incomplete) copy of that
>> person?
>>
>
> You are v1.01 RC1 of the previous version. All that happens is that a
> few bugs get ironed out (and a few new ones introduced).
Heh, I do like that analogy ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.01.2014 20:14, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 20/01/2014 03:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> If the four original band members decide to record an album together
>> again, can they also call themselves YES?
>
> The answer is in the title. ;-)
"YES: We can!" :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.01.2014 20:43, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> This reminds me of the solutions I've seen for a "Beam me up, Scotty"
> machine: iirc it would involve replicating a person atom by atom,
> destroying the original in the process. Which sounds a bit too much like
> murder and cloning all-in-one :S
For possible side effects of this process, see the time machine
(originally conceived as a teleportation device) in the movie "Timeline".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This reminds me of the solutions I've seen for a "Beam me up, Scotty"
> machine: iirc it would involve replicating a person atom by atom,
> destroying the original in the process. Which sounds a bit too much like
> murder and cloning all-in-one :S
Until some hacker figured out how to disable the "destroy after copying"
part of it (which no doubt the government has forced to be kept on with
some bad DRM system). That would open a whole can of worms :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
