Posts
Comments
I'm still struggling with this. I'm fine with the notion that you could, in theory, teleport a copy of me across the universe and to that copy there would be a sense of continuity. But your essay didn't convince me that the version of me entering the teleporter would feel that continuity. To make it explicit, say you get into that teleporter and due to a software bug it doesn't "deconstruct" you up teleportation. Here you are on this end and the technician says "trust me, you were teleported". He then explains that due to intergalactic law, two of you are not allowed to exist, so the version of you on this side of the teleporter must be euthanized. (a) would you be fine with this, since you know there is a copy of you on the other side? and (b) are you asserting that you have some sort of shared consciousness with the copy? To me it seems clear that while the copy would remember getting into the teleporter, the original version would have no notion of whether teleportation was successful or not.
The whole technique of asking peoples' opinion and repeating it back to them is extraordinarily effective with respect to currently in-fashion gender ideology. "What is a Woman" did just that; let people explain themselves in their own words and calmly and politely repeated it back. They hung themselves with no counter argument whatsoever. Now, whether they ever actually changed their mind is another thing.
I think you could do the same in the climate change context, though it's not quite as easy.