Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Copying and deletion of original sapients requires that many in setting believe as Vicky does.
Our opinions about the rationality of such a belief aren't going to change in this thread or any other. I merely mentioned it as seeming absurd for such large sections of humanity to believe something so disconnected to "obvious reality".
Not that in-obvious reality isn't ever true.
I just don't think that such philosophical ideas could ever sweep the globe as quickly or as thoroughly as they do in THS merely 1 century in the future.
Philosophical in that there can be no evidence proving such a belief.

Well, living in a world where pretty much nothing else is unique probably helps. It's just a matter of how much tech and effort is required to break the uniqueness of some entity.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

At the risk of going all over again:
The contradiction seems to be perceived because some people join the discussion already having decided that people/individuals/etc. are unique. But the idea behind uploading is that all Much Ados About Nothing are Much Ados About Nothing, all Hamlets are Hamlets and so on.

It has nothing to do with "unique." In the sense of numerical identity, of course, every person is unique, but so is every grain of sand and every carbon atom and every electron. But electrons are all of the same natural kind, and carbon atoms are either the same natural kind or a small number of them, and bacteria, say, may be genetically identical or very nearly so and thus of the very same (narrowly specified) natural kind. But the bacteria are still numerically distinct individual entities; and, like all living organisms, they act both to secure their own survival and to secure their own reproduction (the coming to be of other entities of their own natural kind).

If you are going to disagree with a view, you ought to take the trouble to describe what the people who hold it actually think.

Bill Stoddard

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Copying and deletion of original sapients requires that many in setting believe as Vicky does.

I don't think that's the case at all.

Let's say that Summerblue is a UK citizen and an SAI. It has a number of assets including a Macroframe that it lives in. It works as a police inspector in London and has a number of shells that the department issues for work. It downloads itself into a work shell.

It could work like this:

• The law treats the new Summerblue as a new person, who is a descendent of the old Summerblue.
• Summerblue needs to have a will that deeds it's assets to the new Summerblue.
• There needs to be an estate proceeding, and all the cruft of inheritance law.
• The new Summerblue needs to interview for the police position, get hired, and work it's way back up the ranks to inspector in order to do it's job.

But really that's a ridiculous amount of stuff for something that Summerblue(s) have to do as part of a routine workday!

It's a lot simpler to just treat all Summerblues as one individual. This doesn't require that you (or even that Summerblue) believes that they are actually the same individual. It just requires that you accept that all Summerblues own Summerblue's things, can do Summerblue's job with Summerblue's rank and so on.

[Flyndaran]

Making suicide based on "delusions" legal requires large populations to believe that it isn't really suicide.
The exact legal work around doesn't matter.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Making suicide based on "delusions" legal requires large populations to believe that it isn't really suicide.

Why does suicide have to be illegal at all?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, living in a world where pretty much nothing else is unique probably helps. It's just a matter of how much tech and effort is required to break the uniqueness of some entity.

I'm unique. Copy me, and you just have a copy, not me. But as absurd as I find your beliefs, I find it even more absurd to imagine large groups believing as you. And therefore likely not to care about my death as long as some copy somewhere else is happy and fine.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why does suicide have to be illegal at all?

Protecting people is a responsibility of society. Especially when the decision is based on delusions.

I've had experiences that were so horrible that the idea of suicide is preferable to living like that for long periods of time.

But killing myself, because I believe I'm Jesus and will resurrect on Halloween is delusional.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I'm unique. Copy me, and you just have a copy, not me. But as absurd as I find your beliefs, I find it even more absurd to imagine large groups believing as you. And therefore likely not to care about my death as long as some copy somewhere else is happy and fine.

As long as the copy can perform the same economic function as you, why should anybody care? Especially if you are an AI and being copied is an inherent part of your existence and required for you to function at all?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Protecting people is a responsibility of society.

You can't meaningfully protect AI from being copied and still have functional AI anymore than you can protect people from death and still have functional people.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

As long as the copy can perform the same economic function as you, why should anybody care? Especially if you are an AI and being copied is an inherent part of your existence and required for you to function at all?

Why should anyone care that society is based on large numbers of citizens killing themselves and everyone pretending that copies are originals?

That's even creepier than Vicky's viewpoint.