View Single Post
Old 12-13-2009, 12:26 PM   #46
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Is Transhuman Space a "silly" genre?

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
It seems straightforward to me. The current you falling off the cliff faces death: The final termination of its consciousness. But it has an heir that may carry on for it. It's kind of like leaving the family business to your son. . . .
This seems straightforward to me as well. Which is why it makes perfect sense to me that 5th wave citizens afford Ghosts the same legal identity as the original and consider SAIs to be the same individual when they copy themselves from shell to shell. I still really don't understand the argument that this legal fiction is implausible; can someone (Flyndaran?) who finds it so please explain why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett View Post
Furthermore, when the backup is activated it will have no awareness of having escaped danger. As a means of escaping death, backup mindscans are not even good psychology, let alone good metaphysics.
In THS though, a ghost must be uploaded after (or during) one's death. A low-res scan taken while one is alive produces a shadow which is considered to be merely a simulation of the original. It seems to me that a ghost has as least as much a chance of remembering their death as anyone who has suffered a traumatic injury.

A former colleague of mine suffered a traumatic brain injury a number of years ago. As a result he lost the ability to retain long term memories and cannot recall anything after a half hour or so before the incident (a similar injury is depicted in the film 50 First Dates). Such injuries are apparently not uncommon and many people who have suffered trauma are unable to remember the incident itself. If a continuity of memory is required for identity is my former brother in arms the same person that he was before the trauma? For that matter was my maternal grandmother the same person she was before the dementia completely destroyed her memories?
Quote:
I wouldn't expect many people to use them unless they are very cheap.
The 5th wave is very wealthy, and uploading seems to be cheap and easily obtained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
The specific clash here is between two concepts of "identity" with different definitions: qualitative identity and numerical identity.
Xoxing makes this issue particularly apparent (which is probably why it generally illegal). If multiple copies of the same infomorph are running concurrently then it becomes pretty clear that they share qualitative identities (at least until they diverge) but are not numerically the same individual.

It's interesting to me that SAIs (and informorphs in general) seem to generally accept this. They seem to be quite happy with deleting themselves when they "move" from shell to shell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
With an LAI,
...
Ultimately I would exhaust its stored information and have nothing more to learn from it.
There are still a lot of reasons to argue with an LAI:
  • It's capable of accessing and processing information much faster than you are, so arguing with it may be a very good intuitive way to do research.
  • It can be used to help improve your own arguments. I think it might be common to instruct one's VI to act as a devil's advocate when preparing for a debate or merely wishing to improve oneself without embarrassment.
  • It could be entertaining. People have sex with VR created by their VIs, so virtual debates for fun or companionship isn't very far fetched.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTim View Post
Remember, unlike an NAI, an LAI can buy off most of its disadvantages. That tells me they can change their worldview.
Can it and still remain an LAI? I'd think that an LAI that buys off it's disadvantages has become a emergent SAI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
That doesn't mean a dog has a worldview.
It doesn't mean a dog doesn't have a worldview either. Dogs definitely have an internal model of how they relate to different individuals whom they recognize and to their environment. They are capable of taking actions in order to produce an expected outcome. How is that not at least a rudimentary worldview? If it isn't I'm not sure you could demonstrate that humans have a worldview either.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote