Dave Edmond's book isn't out for another few days, but he has been on Philosophy Talk before (https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/vienna-circle) and has even written about Parfit - elsewhere (https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/philosophy/46516/reason-and-rom...). If one is interested, there is plenty of stuff to read (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/we-are-not-hu...) or listen to (https://philosophy247.org/podcasts/the-pivotal-generation/). I took the opportunity of this show to pick up Parfit's book 'Reasons and Persons' as I had the book already, having supposedly read it before.

It turns out I hadn't read R&P before, not well, at least. Reading is always different, depending on your time and place and the emphasis you bring with your attention. This recent moment was very other than the moment I had brought before and is an afterlife that may last longer, but probably not. Parfit is perfect at either moment, early in life, or late. In this most recent time, however, I have come to understand something profound and life-affirming. The profundity is the tapestry of consolation implied in the unsigned blog above.

When Parfit died in 2017, NFTs were starting to circulate and hold value, and Blockchain laid the framework to digitize identity and contracts in the previous decade. There is more than enough fodder to spew a blog on that irony.

As Edmonds relates, Derek was on the spectrum and was loved and respected by those who took the time to understand his philosophy. Parfit lived that philosophy, and that is the deepness I alluded to above. It is inspirational and makes the goal of reading Edmond's book worthy of anyone's time.

Here is a recent review of Edmond's book ==> https://www.nysun.com/article/the-man-from-middlemarch . The article is pay-walled and very short but does allow anyone to open it in reader mode or save it to reading sites like Pocket.

The reviewer is Carl Rollyson - who has a particular bent on biography and exercises his lens to pick at Parfit's idea of personal identity. He also recounts a storied interaction with Amia Srinivasan and alludes to Parfit's spectral need for capturing repetitive images and fixation on morality.

Another good read.

While professor Smith is out on lunch break, perhaps it's a good opportunity to discuss the teleportation thought experiment invoked above. Let us alter it a bit though by saying that the replica on Mars is exactly qualitatively identical to the original individual on Earth down to every molecule except for one exception. One molecule must be added to the Mars version so that the trademark of the manufacturer can be embossed upon it, visible under an electron microscope, in order that a warranty be supplied in case of any defects. The Earth version however can have no such warranty on account of the fact that it has not been artificially produced, and any defects must be remedied within the context of terrestrial health insurance, whether state run or private. This means that over time, a given quantity of individuals on Earth would be composed of slightly less molecules than their duplicates on Mars, even if in each given case the added amount would be so small that it could not be perceived.

Then let's say that the quantity of ponderable matter in the universe is finite, as some physicists do, but its duration is infinite. Because a molecule which is added to something in a finite universe has to be taken away from something else, consistent use of the bio-teleport system, given an infinite amount of time, would absorb almost all the other matter in the universe so that all that remains would be the teleported individuals and the mistakes which didn't make it through which are not protected by the manufacturer's warranty. As anything edible would also no longer exist, what protects the remaining mistakes from being eaten by their manufactured duplicates? How could the manufacturer's liability protect the consumer in this case if what went wrong can not help make it right?

There has been reference to and opinions about Parfit, cloning, transhumanism and so on with other blogs I have read this month. Lots of differing views. Insofar as cloning, as I understand it, is (or was) different to the trekie notion of teleportation, I have not taken that discussion seriously. There are other conversations I have had regarding humanism and transhumanism that leave me equally nonplussed. Item: I did not know the humanist idea was 700 years old. That clears up a few things, while raising more questions. For me, anyway. Oh, and I had not mentioned it here, but part of my inquiry included Panpsychism, a cosmos-inclusive belief which has been around since Descartes.---and, ebbs and flows, at will. Or, according to interests, preferences and motives. Seems to me that when physics, biology and belief systems collide, there i s a stochastic, freeway pile-up of 'huge' proportions. Intersections, real or imagined, are dangerous places. Oracles are of no use. Even when they think. I'll ride along.