Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Which me? The one bleeding to death - will lose consciousness and gradually cease all biological functions. The other me - will see a dying body fall to the floor.

And do you anticipate that the mind inhabiting the one bleeding to death will permanently cease to function and to be aware of itself and of reality? Or do you anticipate that it will experience loss of consciousness and then find itself looking out through the eyes of the cybershell at a dead body?

Bill Stoddard

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But notice how you recognized that the Bible is not the dead tree - the Bible is the information. The mind (person) is not the brain - the mind is the information.

The bible is static. A mind may well be an ongoing process. Anyway, can information/mind exist outside a physical medium ? In other words, do we assume supernatural souls ? If we do not, and assume that a mind requires a physical medium, like the bible requires a book, or a CD, or a stone tablet, or a human memory, then "mind in brain A" is as much a different thing from"mind on mainframe B" as a printed bible is a different thing from a CD with the bible on it.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

At this point, we have to agree to disagree, since you and whswhs define 'me' as a time/space line, while I define it as a set of vaguely recognizable properties (like for other informational entities, such as literature). There's very little new either of us can add to this conversation.

Well, you could still explain how you would answer the several practical questions I asked that would result from your definition of identity.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Since you are dead, and the law makes your ghost your legal heir, I think your ghost would argue in front of a judge that it is legally entitled to the gold, yes.

Two assumptions not part of the question: a) I don´t think he said that he died, b) where does which law make a ghost the sole heir ?

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Two assumptions not part of the question: a) I don´t think he said that he died, b) where does which law make a ghost the sole heir ?

That just left me wondering if I'm married to a computer if my wife dies and they copy her into one of these things.

Or if I'm responsible for the thing if someone copies my child into it.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

And it's physically impossible for two sets of physical material to be identical, yes?

I don't think this is correct. It may be impossible to verify in many cases, but as far as I know there is no blanket prohibition.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I don't think this is correct. It may be impossible to verify in many cases, but as far as I know there is no blanket prohibition.

My understanding was that there would always be differences if you could get precise enough information. Thinking about it, that two particles are in different places means they are affected by gravity differently. They both not equally distant from every source of gravity in the universe. And then there's quantum effects to worry about.

I don't know enough about physics to answer this, but when I was learning about chaos theory, the understanding that I got was that if you got enough information, you would find differences, because no two physical systems can be identical.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Two assumptions not part of the question: a) I don´t think he said that he died,

Non-destructive uploading produces a Shadow, not a Ghost, which doesn't have the same legal status as the original.

b) where does which law make a ghost the sole heir ?

In most or all 5th wave nations, as far as I can tell. Isn't that what started all of this? That some people don't think it's plausible that people would accept the ghost as an heir?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

My understanding was that there would always be differences if you could get precise enough information. Thinking about it, that two particles are in different places means they are affected by gravity differently. They both not equally distant from every source of gravity in the universe.

If you include extrinsic proeprties like relative location in your definition of "identical", it becomes meaningless because nothing no matter how simple can have even self-identity because the contents of the unverse move over time.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

If you include extrinsic proeprties like relative location in your definition of "identical"

If one particle is moving at half light speed, and the other is near absolute zero, then they're not identical. And you'll get minute differences from extrinsic forces like gravity.

it becomes meaningless because nothing no matter how simple can have even self-identity because the contents of the unverse move over time.

Something moving has nothing to do with self-identity. If I move a book, it's still the same book. It's still made of the same physical material, only in a different place.

If I have one atom, and its electrons have a different spin than another atom, then those are different. If it's moving at a different velocity because it's a nanometer closer to the sun, then that's a difference. And then you're going to have electrons taking different paths from that gravity difference, aren't you?

I wish I knew more about relativity here, because I'm sure there would be relativistic effects as well, if those actually apply. This probably involves a lot of quantum stuff that is not yet understood (that may be impossible to understand).