Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Even without the copy, the question arises - if your mind is frozen and kept in storage for some time, is your identity intact ? In my book, the answer is the same, as with uploading. You don´t know and you can´t know. The only one who can make qualified statements about your identity is you.

I don't agree with this. Identity has to be referring to specific physical material. I don't accept it as some sort of feeling. There has to be an objective measure for me to accept the concept as valid.

Actually, nobody would be able to tell, including themselves! Even you couldn´t tell the difference between being you or just being convinced to be you while being a (nearly) perfect copy.

That's fine. Sometimes you can't gain certain knowledge. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the concept. You can get patterns where they both end up the same, but there were different starting points, and there's no way to know the starting point. I'm sure there's all sorts of knowledge of the past that's lost to us now. That's just the way the world works. There's probably no way to identify every stegosaurus that ever lived. So what? You could do the same thing with twins and brain injuries right now. So, while I do find it interesting, I don't find it important.

I wonder whether the question of identity actually has any meaning in a thought experiment such as this.

Maybe it doesn't. Maybe we're not working under a strict definition now and our brains have this defined based on feelings, and now we're getting confused because our brains didn't anticipate this possibility. Which is fine. That's how the brain works. We just need to think it through and come up with a definition. I'm sure that's possible here.

If you assume that forming and keeping you identity is a function of your brain and that your brain works under scientifc laws, identity should be a scientifc phenomenon.

I don't think so. I think we can handle this with metaphysical axioms. I wouldn't expect to ever even need to resort to induction for coming up with a definition here. I think any knowledge presupposes identity. If we accept knowledge, we have to accept identity.

I am a thing. I am not the same as things which aren't me. All things are made of causal material. It's just a matter of figuring out which things are me, meaning how to differentiate those things that aren't me from those that are.

I have no problem saying that I have a brain, and that brain's identity remains constant through its own motions. Sure, it's changing all the time, but so is the Nile. I'd probably toss out something like that as a starting point. I'd then add a qualifier, like it's definitely the same thing if we can see its continuation through time and it continues to refer to itself as the same thing. That last one's not necessary, though. You could have amnesia, or you could have a copy that thinks it's the same. But I don't see any way we could have a continuation through time of the same brain, like a river, that continues to consider itself to be the same thing, that isn't then the same thing.

I need to think on that more. That's probably allowing all sorts of weirdness I want excluded. But it does allow for the possibility of being slowly replaced with cybernetics, which I do accept.

To do any more than that, I think would require an understanding of neurology and chemistry and physics, which I want to avoid, since I don't think they're needed for forming a definition, only the application of that definition, testing to see if things are covered by the definition.

But I don't think identity is going to end up having to be based on feelings, like color or taste or stuff like that where you are discussing feelings. How did that light feel when hitting my retina? How did that salt taste when touching my tongue? Those feelings, they're not the same at all, I don't think.

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't agree with this. Identity has to be referring to specific physical material. I don't accept it as some sort of feeling. There has to be an objective measure for me to accept the concept as valid.

Absolutely. That´s exactly what I meant with identity having a scientific base. We were probably miscommunicating then.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Absolutely. That´s exactly what I meant with identity having a scientific base. We were probably miscommunicating then.

Then what did you mean by, "The only one who can make qualified statements about your identity is you"?

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

Then what did you mean by, "The only one who can make qualified statements about your identity is you"?

This remains the case until we have a reliable test for the ErhnamDJ-Particle. :)

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Now that´s what I´d call a proper Transhuman Law. All (close enough) copies of the original you together form You Unlimited. Simple, elegant.

I assume that was irony ? So my wife now has 5,000 spouses ? I have to pay alimonies to 10,000 ex-spouses ? Child support to 20,000 children ?

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

I think this has been said before, but what if you get an electronic brain implant connected to your brain, enhancing or restoring some of its functions ? Will that automatically kill you ? Or a few of the neurons of your brain are exchanged with artifical neurons ? I think you already see where I am getting at: what if the transformation of your brain is a slow and gradual process, could that keep your identity intact in your eyes?

IMO yes. IMO under present law also yes.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

Still, some kind of legal solution resembling inheritance law would probably work smoother - but this one would surely be more interesting. How do all the xoxes organize internally ? Do they form a democracy ? Are they required to form a democracy or can they do as they please ? I think it would be fascinating to explore a situation like that.

Wouldn´t it be a lot easier and less complicated to treat each xox as a new and seperate individual ? And maybe apply modified child support rules to force the father/mother ghost to provide the new ghost with some start capital ?

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

I assume that was irony ? So my wife now has 5,000 spouses ? I have to pay alimonies to 10,000 ex-spouses ? Child support to 20,000 children ?

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

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Wouldn´t it be a lot easier and less complicated to treat each xox as a new and seperate individual ? And maybe apply modified child support rules to force the father/mother ghost to provide the new ghost with some start capital ?

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.

I think both solutions have their pros and cons, but at least for gaming purposes mine is more funny.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

This remains the case until we have a reliable test for the ErhnamDJ-Particle. :)

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