Ghosts and Mind Copies - The Identity Question

[combatmedic]

For whatever my opinion may be worth:

I don't feel in the least bit offended by anything that Bill and SP have written.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by whswhs

You're the one who's talking about souls. I don't believe that consciousness is in any sense a product of a nonphysical soul. So I don't believe that it's an issue of souls being reproduced by machines. Rather, it's a question of what physical organization is necessary for an entity to have a viewpoint, and under what conditions we can say that an entity at time 1 and an entity at time 2 have the same viewpoint.

Bill Stoddard

I don't agree with you on this question of the psyche, as it happens.

I pointed out why I consider THS to be a 'miracle tech' setting. I think it gets into metaphysics, which is pretty interesting, but not what I'd classify as 'hard sci fi.'

I don't think that there's anything inherently 'better' about really rigorous, narrow, even conservative hard sci fi. In fact, most of what I like to read isn't like that. I also like some stuff that gets into the 'social sciences', involves metaphysical speculations,etc. I liked Snow Crash, after all, and Foundation too.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I was talking about the fact that a mind which remembers doing a kill, and possibly even having motivation for further kills (in case of a serial murderer or just an all around violent thug) walks the streets.

The law is about more than just punishment. There is also preemptive imprisonment in case of dangerous/violent insanity, AKA committment to a mental health institution.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

They are the same person, doesn't mean that all of these persons have the same rights. There are lots of ducks, not all ducks have the same color of feathers. How can all be the same species if they have different feathers?

a) If "person" just means "human", I am you. Please give me my wallet. "Species" uses another definition than "individual".

b) If they do not have the same rights, that alone makes them different and they are no longer identical. And if you accept different rights, why not also have different rights for Vicky-Upload and Vicky-Original ? For example, like treating Vicky-Original a dead and Vicky-Upload as a new person ?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

(I wonder what's your answer if you are an employer and you find out one of your employees is a super with Duplication. Do you write new contracts each time the fella duplicates/merges

I believe we are talking about THS and RL. Neither has four-color comic supers. And how do you propose to write a contract for this case ? Remember, they are all the same person. So can a contract distinguish between them ? And how would it be fair to deny contractual rights to Vicky-500 if he is the same person as Vicky-1 and Vicky-Original ? What makes him less worthy if he his the same ?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

(Actually, it encounters the problem that it allows a ghost to kill, transfer to a different shell, and kill again with no legal way to stop him.

The existing legal system would probably commit him to a mental health institution and try to heal (= edit) him to make him harmless. We most certainly have legal ways to deal with this.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Like the implausible idea that souls can be reproduced by machines?
Right you are- and that's why THS is not hard sci fi in the strict sense. It takes a metaphysical stance on human psyches.

AFAICT THS does not do so. Some people in the setting do so. The setting does not tell us whether a ghost is the original person, are something like a SAI. This question is under discussion, both here and in THS.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

AFAICT THS does not do so. Some people in the setting do so. The setting does not tell us whether a ghost is the original person, are something like a SAI. This question is under discussion, both here and in THS.

Metaphysics, right. Not what I'd call hard sci fi material, but interesting stuff for sci fi of the more popular, open sort.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Metaphysics, right. Not what I'd call hard sci fi material, but interesting stuff for sci fi of the more popular, open sort.

<Moderator>
This is a derailment of the topic of this thread. Please stop.
</Moderator>

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I don't feel in the least bit offended by anything that Bill and SP have written.

Likewise on my part. Nor am I offended by molokh's ideas. I just think he's wrong . . . not that he's attacking me or insulting me. No offense should be taken on my behalf.

Bill Stoddard

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by sjard

<Moderator>
This is a derailment of the topic of this thread. Please stop.
</Moderator>

Sure, no problem, sjard,

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...62#post1071762

There, I've created a new genchat thread for the hard sci fi question/topic.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

The law is about more than just punishment. There is also preemptive imprisonment in case of dangerous/violent insanity, AKA committment to a mental health institution.

The law is about preventing crime without breaking the rights of people. Imprisoning a 'newborn' seems like quite a break.

Originally Posted by Pomphis

a) If "person" just means "human", I am you. Please give me my wallet. "Species" uses another definition than "individual".

Why? My wallet belongs to the set 'Vick', and my diploma belongs to the subset {Vick_2005;Vick-2006;...;Vick-upon-death}. It doesn't belong to the set All-Humans, nor does it exclusively belong to the set Vick-2010.

Originally Posted by Pomphis

b) If they do not have the same rights, that alone makes them different and they are no longer identical. And if you accept different rights, why not also have different rights for Vicky-Upload and Vicky-Original ? For example, like treating Vicky-Original a dead and Vicky-Upload as a new person ?

Vicky-Upload is not a new person due to belonging to the set Vicky. Vicky is the person-level set. Vicky-uploads is a sub-person-level (sub)set.

Originally Posted by Pomphis

I believe we are talking about THS and RL. Neither has four-color comic supers. And how do you propose to write a contract for this case ? Remember, they are all the same person. So can a contract distinguish between them ? And how would it be fair to deny contractual rights to Vicky-500 if he is the same person as Vicky-1 and Vicky-Original ? What makes him less worthy if he his the same ?

Yes, it would be fair to 'deny' contractual rights to Vicky-500, because the contract was written in such a way as to only specify the person, and not any specific subset of that person.

Originally Posted by Pomphis

The existing legal system would probably commit him to a mental health institution and try to heal (= edit) him to make him harmless. We most certainly have legal ways to deal with this.

*Checks back the history of his country* Yes, it is certainly possible for a legal system to contain ways of allowing the government to try 'healing' people to make them harmless. I'm surprised you don't see that as a breach of basic rights though.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The law is about preventing crime without breaking the rights of people. Imprisoning a 'newborn' seems like quite a break.

But do you claim that Vicky-Upload and every later copy is legally a newborn ? And must wait 18 years before it can vote ? According to you the ghost of Vicky-2010 is the same person and has the same age. According to the worldline model it is a new person - but may very well be legally an adult. There is nothing in "worldline" about just when somebody is legally an adult. So it would not be inconsistent at all to legally assign the age of the uploaded person to the new person and treat this copy as a dangerous adult.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Why? My wallet belongs to the set 'Vick', and my diploma belongs to the subset {Vick_2005;Vick-2006;...;Vick-upon-death}. It doesn't belong to the set All-Humans, nor does it exclusively belong to the set Vick-2010.
Vicky-Upload is not a new person due to belonging to the set Vicky. Vicky is the person-level set. Vicky-uploads is a sub-person-level (sub)set.

Now you are introducing a completely new concept: sub-persons. Please define and explain whether they are persons (with all rights thereof) or something less (in which way ?). What is the relationship between them persons and sub-persons, and between sub-persons ?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yes, it would be fair to 'deny' contractual rights to Vicky-500, because the contract was written in such a way as to only specify the person, and not any specific subset of that person.

In which case Vicky-500 is as entitled to all contractual rights as Vicky-1. Remember, according to you they are the same person.

The very act of distinguishing between them by assigning different rights to different ghosts makes the claim that they are the same person nonsensical.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

*Checks back the history of his country* Yes, it is certainly possible for a legal system to contain ways of allowing the government to try 'healing' people to make them harmless. I'm surprised you don't see that as a breach of basic rights though.

AFAIK all western countries have such laws today. That´s how we deal with "innocent due to insanity" cases.