From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@ricochet.net)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 01:17:45 MDT
Harvey writes
>Then we actually agree on what is happening. We are just disagreeing on
>nomenclature for these events. This is what I suspected was occurring.
>> I agree. But it is wrong for you to suggest that there
>> is any straightforward scientific answer to this question,
>Right. The objective description we agree upon are provable.
>The nomenclature systems that we choose to adopt of subjective.
>I think we agree.
No, not at all. (Some us just refuse to be agreeable :-)
I emphasize that the proper role of philosophy is to prescribe
courses of action. The rest really amounts to hot air, or
to terminological squabbles.
For example, "abortion is murder" is NOT just a terminological
disagreement. It heavily links to our future actions, and
if people in favor of abortion lose that argument, they could
be treated the same way we treat other murderers.
In the same way, taking the money in
You enter a room and find a block of ice encasing a
frozen duplicate of you that was made a few minutes
ago. On the block of ice sits a briefcase with ten
million dollars in it. You have two choices:
(A) allow your frozen duplicate to be disintegrated
along with the briefcase
(B) agree to be instead disintegrated yourself, so
that your duplicate awakes and deposits the money
or taking an action in any number of future uploaded scenarios
could turn out to be critically important, depending on the case.
If you need the money, for example, it turns out to be critically
important whether duplicates are selves.
>> For better or worse, indeed we do choose some viewpoints
>> "because we like it". You can't tell me that you would
>> be completely unaffected if your friends and neighbors
>> got to exploit some new technology that you couldn't
>> because of your philosophical views.
>
>What if I proposed that we kill you and hire a cheap actor to replace you.
>It would be good enough for your employer. No matter how many people choose
>this way, you wouldn't be convinced. If you really believed you would die,
>you would never give in to peer pressure, convenience or temptation to do it
>"just once."
Your argument is almost, but not quite, fair. You have to add that
all these people seem to be intelligent, and can explain at great
length why their actions are reasonable. They seem to have answers
to all your questions.
Granted, you may still think that something weird is going on, but
my claim that you'd be affected is true. Some part of your mind
would begin to doubt. (I'm sure that indeed you have begun to
wonder if perhaps there could be something to "duplicates are selves"
after all.)
>> Imagine there are three entities A, B, and C, that
>> subscribe to your view who you get to interview (I'm
>> sorry if you already understand my point, now, but
>> there are other readers). So on Monday you go to A
>> and say: "will B who is a copy of you made tomorrow be
>> you?". He'll say yes. "How about C? Will he also
>> be you?" Again, he'll say yes. Now we go to Tuesday
>> and ask B, "Are you the same person as A?" He'll say
>> yes, and C will also maintain that he's the same person
>> as A. So your view generates that A and B are the same
>> person, and that A and C are the same person, but that
>> B and C are entirely different people! Something
>> sounds wrong here!
>
>That's because your wording is imprecise. You are confusing yourself by
>equating A with B and C. When A exists, there is no B and C. When B and C
>exist, there is no A. You cannot use the present tense verb "is" to equate
>these entities that do not exist at the same time.
We do it all the time. You really do think that you are the same
person who wrote earlier emails in this thread. Or that if your
boss fires you tomorrow for having stayed up too late writing
emails, it's you that'll get canned.
Yes, the tenses are confusing. When speaking of the past or future,
they change in English. But this is an accident of language, and
not all languages have this feature. Despite what you say, I
am not confused. Many people agree with me; neither they, nor
I, nor you are confused---these disagreements are substantive.
>I think it is more accurate to consider the copies to be equivalent
>derivations of the original. When the person splits into two copies, it is
>like a river that splits into two branches. The left branch is a downstream
>continuation of the river. The right branch is a downstream continuation of
>the river. But the two branches are not downstream continuations of each
>other.
Again, you speak of continuation. Didn't I already explain that
I do not belong to the camp that thinks much of continuation?
We believe that the state is everything---how it got there,
continuously, discontinuously, miraculously---it doesn't matter
at all. And sufficiently similar states are equivalent for any
practical purpose, including continuing to live.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:56 MST