From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 13:47:37 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote,
> 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.
Agreed. I can see that this is more important than just terminology
nomenclature. I retract that statement. However, just as with the abortion
debate, it seems that we agree on the facts of the case. We disagree on the
ramifications of those events. Moral questions may be real, but they are
not as rigorously discernable as atomic structures. There is more room for
differing opinions than in hard science. This is what I meant.
> 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.)
Why do you keep insisting that might belief systems will erode if I am in
the minority. My very ideas of life extension drugs, cryonics,
vegetarianism, libertarianism, scientific method, sexual orientation,
religious beliefs, and favorite TV shows are all in the minority as well. I
see know reason why my scientific world view should be changed to something
I cannot prove to myself just because everybody else does it.
> 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, but the future me is derived from the past me. It is imprecise to say
they are equivalent. In your example, one is employed while the other is
not. If you argue that they are the "same me" and that they are
"equivalent", why would one get paid and one not? They may be the same, but
they are experiencing different environments. I would definitely choose one
of these over the other if I had a choice. The argument that they are the
"same" or "equivalent" would not keep me from preferring one over the other.
> >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.
But you miss my point. I also don't think much of continuation. My point
is not that continuation is important. My comments about continuation is to
show that your logic is imprecise. You are using "equivalence" over time to
equate one object to later changed version of that object. Then you
"define" them as "equivalent", even though the object has changed. This is
not a correct use of "equivalent". This is really a "derived from"
function.
My requirements for uploads and replacement copies do not require
continuation in time. I just require the same connection to the same "me"
as I have now. Movements in space or time do not matter as long as I end up
connected to a body that I can control and experience. By your definition
of self, the same single self is connected to the new body AND the old body.
By my definition of self, the self connected to one body is not connected to
the other body. There are two selves, each connected to a separate body and
not connected to each other.
I guess the real question we have to clear up is this: Do you agree with my
assessment? Do you see what I mean when I say one mind is connected to one
body and not to the other body? Do you agree that your copy method does not
produce the one mind connected to two bodies that I want?
Specifically, can you choose one of the following statement to clarify your
response to my position:
A) Harvey is wrong when he says that the copy procedure does not do what he
wants.
B) Harvey wants something, but the copy procedure does something different
which is just as good.
C) Harvey wants something stupid, but the copy procedure does something that
is what he really should want.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:57 MST