From: Emlyn (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 03:20:14 MDT
> I claim to have a proof that duplicates are self, though I guess
> "proof" may be a tad bit strong. Still, I've been told that this
> essay is pretty effective:
>
>
> http://www.leecorbin.com/dupproof.html
>
> Lee
>
"Let us return to the central question for a moment. "Why do people find it
so hard to believe that one can be in two places at the same time?"
Logically, there SHOULD be no problem. For those who believe in physics, a
person is a process like any other mechanical process, and is executing in
some region of spacetime. When two processes are absolutely identical (in
everything except location, say), we have utterly no problem deeming them to
be the *same* process. "
Well, I'd have a problem with it, ornery bugger that I am :-)
On a computer, two processes can be executing which have exactly the same
state (data, state of external resources, anything else?) and program, at
exactly the same time - call it a dual processor machine, one processor
running on each, in absolute lockstep, just to avoid quibbles about
timeslicing.
These would definitely be called different processes. They are identical
instances of the same program, but they are different instances, no doubt
about that. Even with identical program and state.
"Suppose a duplicate of you has been created, and he or she resides in your
home on Earth for a day while "you" explore the Moon. Then at the end of the
day, suppose a "merging" process could cause the creation of an entity which
had equal access to the Moon memories and the Earth memories. Then this
creature remembers being you on the Moon and remembers being you on Earth...
*at the same time*. "
How does this work? We are not built to remember different things happening
simulataneously, as far as I am aware... or are we?
How, also, does this merging process work? I am dubious about a few
things...
- the claim that you can "merge" in memories somehow from another instance
of yourself, but not those from someone who is not a chip off the old block.
How do you justify this?
- This memory "merging" is not going to be real merging, is it? It's really
adding memories to someone who already has a set of memories. In some places
(in your elaborate torture scenario) you remove memories too. So really you
are talking about messing around with a person's memories in quite a severe
way.
The biggest problem I have with these scenarios that you present is that
they rely on an implicit assumption that a person is really the sum of
his/her memories. Possibly you might add personality to memories, because
there is a current state at any time to your self which could be considered
separate to your memories...
Anyway, all these scenarios rely heavily on the memories of the individuals
involved. Thus, anywhere that you are talking about a copy, you can
substitute "heavily brainwashed and memory tampered individual who is
otherwise unrelated to the original person in question, but believes that he
is that person and looks and behaves exactly as if it were so", and leave
the validity of the scenario unaffected.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:50 MST