Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I suspect the problem is that the answer to this question is undefined in the current linguistic system, because the question never came up in a realistic scenario before. It's kinda like what happens when you expect to be given a boolean variable, but once you get your variable and examine it, you discover that it is neither true nor false, but rather null. Confusion ensues.

Not for me. I understand the difference between the first person singular, used when one speaks on behalf of oneself, and the first person plural, used when one speaks on behalf of a group to which one belongs. You're just imagining a group of entities that are more closely similar than before. But language has long provided for cases where the difference between one member of a group and another is not relevant.

The thing is, language provides for both cases. You seem to want to do away with one of them. That is, you want an impoverished vocabulary and an impoverished conceptual structure.

Bill Stoddard

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Only if you suppose that the only meaningful basis for making statements about physical reality is making statements about specific fundamental particles, and that you cannot speak of the identity of a molecule, a cell, an organism, or a planet. And in that case, virtually every statement we make, and effectively all statements about daily human life, or about law, or in any natural human language, is meaningless, and we might as well abandon this discussion. Or you might as well; I don't find any of those things meaningless.

Bill Stoddard

Actually, I can´t follow you here. I presume that whatever constitutes our identity (by which I mean our conciousness, our sense of identity or whatever you call it) has a physical base and could theoretically and conceptually described in scientific terms. I don´t see why that somehow restricts my ability to communicate. While I could describe you by describing your precise pjysical structure, I can at the same time describe you by your name, prodided that is a unique descriptor.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Ahem, no. No irony. And I really don´t see much of a problem here. Your wife won´t have 5.000 spouses. The 5000 copies together are you. And if she doesn´t like to be married to a multiple infomorph association she can get a divorce.

Why do you assume infomorphs ? All of them can download to a cyber- or bioshell.

And what if she does not want a divorce ? And what about me ?

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Given the trend in maritial law, getting a divorce will probably take about 5 seconds in 2100. And there won´t be any alimonies involved, especially not for an abusive husband making unconsentual xoxes or himself.

What if the xoxes are made by a third party ? Or are back-ups that were only to be activated upon death, but were activated by accident ? Or if the husband made just a single ghost, and that ghost decided to xox himself ?

Originally Posted by sn0wball

These problems don´t come up if you upgrade the whole legal systems to transhuman standards.

And how do you do that ? "The 5000 copies together are you" - so if somebody deletes one that is not murder but only assault ? Even if the deleted copy lived seperately from the others for 20 years ?

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

But what about public law, for example ? What about voting ? Can you increase your voting base by multiplying yourself for an upcomign election ? Under my system, all these xoxes share one vote.

Which means you treat them as one person. If they download to bioshells, does that remain true ? If no.1 commits a crime, can I punish no.1,214 even if he lived seperately from no.1 for the last 20 years, maybe on another planet ?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Actually, I can´t follow you here. I presume that whatever constitutes our identity (by which I mean our conciousness, our sense of identity or whatever you call it) has a physical base and could theoretically and conceptually described in scientific terms. I don´t see why that somehow restricts my ability to communicate. While I could describe you by describing your precise pjysical structure, I can at the same time describe you by your name, prodided that is a unique descriptor.

Then why are you asking if there's an "Ernham DS particle"? If you admit the existence of complex physical structures as entities that can be described, there is need to resort to such particulars to have identifiability, is there?

Actually, I don't think you could describe me by describing my precise physical structure. Are you going to write the differential equation that specifies the quantum state of every particle in my body? Or even write a description of every molecule, or every cell? Good luck with that. Your whole idea of what you "could" do is actually an idea of what an omniscient God "could" do—but there are no omniscient Gods. I'm surprised to see you resorting to such metaphysical fantasy in the name of realism.

And finally, it's ironic that you end up with "pro[v]ided that is a unique descriptor," in a passage purporting to reject "identity." Being capable of having a unique descriptor is exactly what identity is all about! So you seem to be pushing identity out the front door and then sneaking it in the back door under another name.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Why do you assume infomorphs ? All of them can download to a cyber- or bioshell.

In THS, all informorphs are by definition inhabiting cybershells or bioshells. If a body of information is not being executed, it is not an infomorph but a backup, and is not, for example, subject to anti-xoxing laws. And in any case there is no supposition that information can be stored without a physical medium.

Bill Stoddard

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

And what if she does not want a divorce ? And what about me ?

You live happily ever after ? :)

Originally Posted by Pomphis

What if the xoxes are made by a third party ? Or are back-ups that were only to be activated upon death, but were activated by accident ? Or if the husband made just a single ghost, and that ghost decided to xox himself ?

What if someone breaks into a hospital, acquires spermium of yours and procreates dozens of your biological children with it? I mean, situations such as these are extreme and rare cases involving illegal behaviour and probably cannot have ideal solutions.

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Which means you treat them as one person. If they download to bioshells, does that remain true ? If no.1 commits a crime, can I punish no.1,214 even if he lived seperately from no.1 for the last 20 years, maybe on another planet ?

Well, for one, I think we already established at another point that criminal law can follow totally different rules. Also, a sufficiently advanced transhuman law system will have no criminal law as we know it anyway. But discussing that will certainly be beyond the scope of this thread. We could start one about transhuman law.

DOwnloading into a bioshell, at least, as whswhs pointed out, has no legal effect.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Well, for one, I think we already established at another point that criminal law can follow totally different rules. Also, a sufficiently advanced transhuman law system will have no criminal law as we know it anyway. But discussing that will certainly be beyond the scope of this thread. We could start one about transhuman law.

I would not call a system without criminal law "transhuman" but "subhuman." Criminal penalties amount to a price that is paid for negatively valued conduct, and thus imply a kind of exchange: a transaction between two decision makers. Doing away with criminal penalties at least suggests an attempt to repair or treat the person whose conduct is viewed negatively, as if they were a poorly functioning machine that was not serving its intended purpose—but that implies that other people have the right to dictate what their intended purpose is, which is lowering them below human standing rather than raising them above it.

I'm willing to accept the proposed premise that a radically different system of criminal law could exist; in fact, several of my campaigns have presented players with such systems. But I should like to see a sketch of a particular proposed system of "transhuman law," at least as a proof of concept, before admitting that the idea makes even fictional sense.

Bill Stoddard

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Then why are you asking if there's an "Ernham DS particle"? If you admit the existence of complex physical structures as entities that can be described, there is need to resort to such particulars to have identifiability, is there?

Did you miss the smily after that sentence of mine ? I seem to remember that attempts of mine at humor don´t work on you. :)

What I meant with that I already tried to describe - what ever makes you you and, as of now, different from everybody else, is a physical property of your body or probably rather of your brain.

Actually, I don't think you could describe me by describing my precise physical structure. Are you going to write the differential equation that specifies the quantum state of every particle in my body? Or even write a description of every molecule, or every cell? Good luck with that. Your whole idea of what you "could" do is actually an idea of what an omniscient God "could" do—but there are no omniscient Gods. I'm surprised to see you resorting to such metaphysical fantasy in the name of realism.

As there is no ghosting, no perfect or imperfect copies of people. (At least scanning bodies on a molecular level seems to be perfectly within the range of THS technology, at least destructively.) Do you reject the question whether you are the sum of your physical components or not on the grounds that it cannot be tested? If so, there is a lot less to discuss in a thread such as this.

Originally Posted by whswhs

And finally, it's ironic that you end up with "pro[v]ided that is a unique descriptor," in a passage purporting to reject "identity." Being capable of having a unique descriptor is exactly what identity is all about! So you seem to be pushing identity out the front door and then sneaking it in the back door under another name.

Our miscommunication seems to continue. I am not rejecting identity. I merely state that it is a physical phenomenon (like anything else). I simply don´t know whether your name is a unique descriptor. Mine isn´t.

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm willing to accept the proposed premise that a radically different system of criminal law could exist; in fact, several of my campaigns have presented players with such systems. But I should like to see a sketch of a particular proposed system of "transhuman law," at least as a proof of concept, before admitting that the idea makes even fictional sense.

A society without criminal law is described in THS Deep Beyond, or at least one. Its the Duncanites, with hired security and judges, who don´t impose fines, penalties or other punishments, but rather simply compensation for injured parties, which would fall under civil law today. Another system I have suggested for use in THS a long time ago here.