11-02-2010, 04:32 AM | #541 | |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
And I still do not now which of the 500 Vickys I am now married to, as an employer which one I have to pay, and as a landlord which one I have to give the keys. One could have a rule "In the case of multiple copies being created, a notary public shall determine randomly which one is to be treated as the original. All others shall be treated as new persons." But would that be fair for example in cases where new copies were created without the consent of the first ghost ? Let´s say, an old backup being activated by accident ?* Or one could say that the first copy is to be treated as the original and all later copies as new persons. But what if the first copy is stored as a back-up and the second, made a microsecond later, is downloaded into a new body ? And all such approaches would of course be inconsistent with the claim that all are the same person and require that they are defined as different persons. But without that, I see a legal nightmare. *Which brings up another question: are Vicky-backup2080 and Vicky-2100 the same person ? What if Vicky married in 2090 ? If Vicky-2100 dies, and Vicky-backup2080 is activated, is he married ? |
|
11-02-2010, 04:40 AM | #542 | |
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: OK
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
I've been watching this thread for fifteen or so pages, waiting for some point to jump in. Doesn't look like that's ever going to happen, since this is exactly the same point I would be making. I am my body. All the little (really little) bits of matter I have accumulated, all glommed together in what I refer to as a 'body.' To look at it another way, let us go to my shotgun. It is mine, the same as my body. I would not say that it is me, though, as I would with my body. But it is still mine. I am the owner of it. Now, say someone scans my shotgun and uses the information obtained in that scan to make a copy (using entirely different matter). Is that new shotgun mine? No. It has different qualities. It exists in a different place and is made of different matter. It did not come to be in the same way as the one that is mine. It does not meet any conceivable standard of 'mine,' but meets every standard of 'not-mine.' In the same way, making a copy of my body does not mean that said copy is mine, or me. It is made of different matter than I am. And my understanding is that it is not even physically possible to make it exactly the same--something about a Heisenberg fellow. This is a matter of definitions. I would define 'me' as the matter that makes up my body (particularly my brain), in the pattern that said matter would refer to as 'me.' It may be possible to make something that resembles my body. But that thing is not me. Because it is not made of my matter, and because the matter that makes up 'me' would not refer to that thing as 'me.' I think this is, in essence, the same as Bill's position. |
|
11-02-2010, 06:25 AM | #543 | ||||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Innocent due to insanity is not the same thing as editing a person who didn't do anything (that is, if you follow the worldline approach with all new instances being legally newborns). |
||||
11-02-2010, 10:19 AM | #544 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
You've insisted that identity can only be defined by similarity of information content within certain specified limits; in particular, that a person can only be defined by their information content. Fine, that's a premise. Now all of a sudden you're talking about entities. Are entities also defined by similarity of information content? If so, then since they're within a person, presumably they're defined by narrower specificity of information content. Why is there a need for two levels of specificity in a legal system? What does the narrower level do that the wider level does not? Or, conversely, why only two levels, and not an unlimited number? Or are entities not defined by similarity of information content, but does each entity have its own worldline that uniquely defines it? If so, haven't you just brought back in the "worldline continuity" standard of personal identity by the back door? I'm not sure what we gain if all we're doing is changing the legal name from "person" to "entity," if the concept of a unique individual with a unique worldline is still part of the conceptual structure of the law. It doesn't seem like a substantial change at all, but only a nominal one. Please clarify. Bill Stoddard |
|
11-02-2010, 10:26 AM | #545 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
(b) It's true that the rights of an individual as defined by worldline continuity are not solely defined by which worldline they are on. But pattern similarity is not the only other option. In fact, I don't see any way to define an age limit as a question of pattern similarity; if it were that, wouldn't the logical approach be to make people take some sort of psychological test before getting their license to drink? The question has never been one of "what is the legal basis for the rights of an individual?" Rather, it's "how do you identify an individual in a legal code based on the following concept of personal identity?" Once you've identified them, other concerns may come into play. Bill Stoddard |
|
11-02-2010, 10:40 AM | #546 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
I find ghost 'branching' a natural consequence of ghost copying in general. Also, I'm not for just renaming persons to entities. Instead, I'm for treating persons as sets and not as indivisible 'atoms'. |
|
11-02-2010, 10:47 AM | #547 | ||
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-02-2010, 10:54 AM | #548 | ||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-02-2010, 11:25 AM | #549 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
What I've been arguing is that he adopts a very wide set of limits of similarity for some purposes, but a much narrower set for others, in a way that makes no sense on his own premises, but just happens to fairly closely replicate the conclusions of a worldline continuity view of personal identity. Bill Stoddard |
|
11-02-2010, 12:01 PM | #550 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: OK
|
Re: Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question
Quote:
Criterion for what? Certainly it can't be for 'sameness,' as that would require exactness, rather than 'similarity.' In other words, for something to be the same as something else requires it to be exactly the same. It must share all of the same qualities. If it does not share all of the same qualities (position in space, which matter makes up its parts, etc), then it cannot be said to be the same. Which does lead, correctly, to the use of the word 'similar' in describing the resulting creation in this instance. But said being cannot correctly be described as 'the same.' This is a function of the language, and cannot logically be denied. I will attempt to demonstrate (for my own sake), the exact example as I understand it, so that I will have a starting point from which to discuss. Note that I am not familiar with 'Transhuman Space,' though I do have some knowledge of transhumanism. I'm going off of what I have picked up from reading this thread. Here goes: So, what we have is a machine. It can analyze the structures of a heap of matter that we refer to as a 'human' and in doing so make a working model of this 'human' inside a computing device. But to analyze those structures, it must turn the matter formerly a 'human' into something that would more aptly be described as 'puree.' Do I have that right? Quote:
Molokh, would you please post those for me, if you have not yet done so (a rather difficult sentence to phrase with the name at the start)? :) |
||
Tags |
verhängnisthread |
|
|