First of all… I wish I could write like you. Your command of language is much better than mine.
But, back to the debate:
On responsibility, I disagree that responsibility is nullified. Its all in how we set the rules. If we were to start from the thought-baton (TB) position, the concept of responsibility would be reworked.
As things stand now, we say, “you are responsible for something you did before because you are the person who did it. Even if you have had a complete change of heart and would never do this again, you are still responsible so ought to be punished.”
However, if we start from the TB position, we would merely need to lay down the rule: All future iterations of yourself are responsible for for what a past iteration does. From there, we could say adam(t1) is responsible for what adam(t0) did and not have a problem. The rule would work fine (in most cases) because earlier iterations of each person do in fact care about what happens to their later iterations. From there, the thread that connects one iteration to another is essentially the same as the way you would define what makes someone the same through time: continuity of thought. That thread remains a vital component.
Similarly, rights would not be sacrificed. It would no longer be the case that Bob owns the car, but it would be that at all future points in time, future iterations of Bob own all future iterations of the car (as indeed, one would need to apply this iterative version of “things” to inanimate objects as well).
The key point is that all the rules would need to be rewritten. One cannot start with non-TB laws and try to apply them in a TB world. If one does, they end up like a person who tries to learn relativity but refuses to leave some Newtonian concepts, perpetually confounded by apparent paradoxes.
(As a side note, I would wonder how culture would have evolved differently had we started with this view. I’m not able to imagine such a culture off the top of my head, but any theories would be fascinating).
At some point, this might begin to sound like we’re playing with words. Aren’t we, in effect, saying the same thing with different words? Effectively, in normal every day life, there is no distinction between what we are talking about. However, its in the edge cases that things might become difficult. You need to move near the speed of light to actually notice the effects Einstein described.
And my beer is here, so I cannot keep writing. Therefore, I leave with a parting thought, and a promise to return: What happens if we build a teleportation machine that destroys one body and recreates it on the other side. Now, what happens if it recreates the new version without destroying the old one? I shall meditate on this question and, hopefully, return a bit wiser.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
