I Gotta be Me
"I" is a moving target. With each experience "I" change but "I" do not
experience change because there is no time, space or motion for "I".
"I" is an instantiation of my existence. My today's "I" supervenes
yesterday's and in turn will be supervened by tomorrow's. The loss of
today's "I" is not registered because it is replaced by tomorrow's "I"
of equal value.

Suppose I am given the option of one of three futures (a) loss of
conscious and unconscious mental functions (b) loss of conscious
mental function only and (c) to 'know what is like' to be someone
else.
What should be my preference?
Zinnic

On Mar 15, 6:33 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

church?

MG

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT), zinnic gate.net>
wrote:

Tell it to the judge who will insist that _you_ are responsible for
past crimes comitted.

On Mar 14, 4:35 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:02 pm, Art zilch.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:10:00 -0700 (PDT), zinnic gate.net>
wrote:

On Mar 15, 11:25 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:35:41 -0700 (PDT), zinnic gate.net>
wrote:

On Mar 16, 5:24 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

Zinnic wrote:
Art, I do agree with your common sense usage of "I". My problem is with
your description of it as a 'core' identity. I regard it as a nominal
identity. I guess my problem relates to whether or not one can step into
the same river twice.

Rivers, seas, tornadoes, hurricanes etc are 'identified' by assigned
names. Just as named streams of water can be traced back to their
beginning sources, so named streams of experience ("I"s) can be traced
back to their childhood beginnings. The stream of water one wades in is
not identical to its source. Similarly, the stream of experiences ("I")
typing this post is not identical to my childhood beginnings. About the
legal system. The 'stream' of experiences is judged, not its
instantiation at the time of trial. If the stream is judged to have
caused damage in the past, steps to minimize future damage by the stream
are recommended.
My comment,

The river analogy may be good poetry, but I can't see it as good
philosophy, or logic. It suggests that every new experience creates a
different identity.