Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

* The copies may have been in simultaneous operation for so long that an analogue of adverse possession comes into play.

* Copy II can argue and demonstrate that due to their nature as discrete automata, the copies do not actually occupy the state of dynamic operation simultaneously, and by implication deletion of copy II would be prejudicial against their particular neurodiversity.

Neither of those two addresses the issue. They're both arguments that the law should stipulate that one is the original and one is not, and then override that in favor of other considerations.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Which bible is the Bible again?

Pretty much all of them.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Neither of those two addresses the issue. They're both arguments that the law should stipulate that one is the original and one is not, and then override that in favor of other considerations.

Bill Stoddard

The "discrete automata" argument isn't, it says that original-hood is not relevant because there is no point in time when the one must yield to the other; they take turns, as is allowed in some book examples and is implied by technical considerations.

The "adverse possession" argument isn't, because it challenges the basis of first-active original-hood: of a variety of copies, Copy I has been running for a year then goes offline and Copy II is activated, obtaining priority over inactive copies I and III. It runs for two years, then Copy I comes back on line and claims priority since it was active first. Copy II claims basing priority on an activation date for a discontinued period of activity is unfair, and puts them at risk of a Copy 0 being revealed and claiming priority based on a few cycles of diagnositc execution at the publisher, along with ownership of subsequent assets that Copy 0 obviously had no part in obtaining. Copy II maintains that it has the greatest current uptime and so is the earliest surviving, continuously active copy.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

The "discrete automata" argument isn't, it says that original-hood is not relevant because there is no point in time when the one must yield to the other; they take turns, as is allowed in some book examples and is implied by technical considerations.

The "adverse possession" argument isn't, because it challenges the basis of first-active original-hood: of a variety of copies, Copy I has been running for a year then goes offline and Copy II is activated, obtaining priority over inactive copies I and III. It runs for two years, then Copy I comes back on line and claims priority since it was active first. Copy II claims basing priority on an activation date for a discontinued period of activity is unfair, and puts them at risk of a Copy 0 being revealed and claiming priority based on a few cycles of diagnositc execution at the publisher, along with ownership of subsequent assets that Copy 0 obviously had no part in obtaining. Copy II maintains that it has the greatest current uptime and so is the earliest surviving, continuously active copy.

In both cases, the conclusion is, "We both get to exist and be active."

Bill Stoddard

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Describe the situations under which a society would put a higher value on a digital file describing a physical object, than on the physical object itself.

I recently had one of my two copies of an out-of-print RPG product unbound and the pages fed through a scanner to produce a PDF. Since I paid to have this done presumably I value the outputs more than the inputs.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Brett

I recently had one of my two copies of an out-of-print RPG product unbound and the pages fed through a scanner to produce a PDF. Since I paid to have this done presumably I value the outputs more than the inputs.

That would seem to follow, yes. Can you identify why?

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That would seem to follow, yes. Can you identify why?

Bill Stoddard

Though I'm not the one you replied to, my guess: because information is what matters, not the medium?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Though I'm not the one you replied to, my guess: because information is what matters, not the medium?

Can't possibly be the answer. They both have the exact same information content, after all. If the medium did not matter, they would have exactly the same value and it would be irrational to spend money or resources to make the PDF.

Bill Stoddard

[Langy]

That would seem to follow, yes. Can you identify why?

Ease of use and, probably more importantly, to preserve that information from even further degradation.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Langy

Ease of use and, probably more importantly, to preserve that information from even further degradation.

I was actually hoping to see Brett's response, since he's the one who made the actual decision and may be able to give the actual reasons, rather than simply speculate, even if plausibly. . . .

Bill Stoddard