From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 15:26:17 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>I never get involved in these silly debates about "identity"
>and duplication, because I have yet to see anyone ask a
>question that's meaningful and interesting instead of just
>prattling on about definitions. But an almost unnoticed
>side comment in this latest one brought to mind an issue I
>do think is interesting and worth exploring: the nature of
>"obligation" and "communal planning".
>
It is important to get the definitions straight, or there will never be
an agreement. Still, given that, perhaps one shouldn't yet expect there
to be any agreement. The duplication of identities is not yet possible,
so we don't really have any idea what the possibilities and constraints
would be. At this point, perhaps the important thing is to consider all
sides of the matter. (I have my own hopes, but I don't know whether or
not they will be plausible.)
>...
>The interesting question, then, is how do we, the other
>sentients, handle cases where we have contracted with the
>not-yet-duplicated me for some future plans? The case of
>a destructive scan-and-dup should be pretty simple: it's
>close enough to existing notions of "transportation" that
>we can just treat it that way. But what about the case
>where I deliberately fork, and my dup goes off travelling
>while I remain for a while, and then, say, die in an
>accident because I knowingly took an excessive risk? Do
>
I find more interesting the case when after diverging you rejoin. Can
there be a process merge? Would you want there to be? What about just
exchanging diffs?
>the people to whom I owed obligations have a greater claim
>than the ordinary one on my estate, or a claim against my
>other fork, because there's another instance out there who
>remembers giving the obligation, might be in a position to
>
Ah, yes. If I sign a contract, is my duplicate required to fulfill it?
The lawyers will become wealthy, unless they fall into the same trap.
>...
>How do my obligations, alliances, and contracts with others
>affect my ability to fork? If I am married, do I have the
>
That's an interesting proposition. It hadn't occured to me that the
might, but now that you suggest it...
>...
>Can I form contracts between me and my twin before his
>creation? After all, I know everything he will know when
>
Whee! Can you make binding contracts with yourself? That seems to be
what the question is. To the extent that the fork is seen as a separate
individual, you wouldn't be able to obligate him. (Also: Which one is
the fork?)
>he is created, and have all the same motivations, so
>shouldn't I be able to sign on his future behalf?
>
This depends. Is he embodied within the same kind of body that you are?
Identical? It hardly seems likely. Even if it's based around a clone
of your DNA, it would have been raised in a lab, so, e.g., it's
experiences with exercises would be different. And I suspect that the
first generation of duplicates will live within computers, so they may
well have quite different motivations. And even if the basic motives
are the same, standing in a different position will change everything.
If you and he played chess, only one of you would be wanting for white
to win.
>...
>
>
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:52 MST