From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 16:54:47 MST
gts writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> >> Who decides if my backup is the same person I was when I
> >> died? And based on what criteria is that decision made?
> >
> > Who determines what constitutes a "high degree of similarity" depends
> > on circumstances.
>
> Sorry but "depends on circumstances" is not a clear answer. I've already
> specified the circumstances in my thought experiment. Would the Supreme
> Court decide? If so, based on what criteria?
I don't know what criteria the Supreme Court would use,
and I don't really care. Perhaps the Senate would decide.
It hardly matters to me.
> > Normally, as for example between people who know
> > each other quite well, other people decide. (Quoted from my
> > previous post.)
>
> Which people?
If person X is replaced by an old backup of person X,
there may be some debate about whether he's still the
same guy or not. Opinions will differ. He may make
love the same way but have different political opinions,
or vice-versa.
The people who know him best, of course.
> I picked a politician example because politicians
> generally make their views a matter of public record. In my thought
> experiment, the American public is aware of my previous position on Iraq
> *and* aware that I changed my position just prior to the Senate vote. Is
> the public going to accept your view that my backup's vote on the issue
> is really my vote?
I cannot tell what the public will accept, sorry.
> Perhaps those in favor of my former position would go
> along with your assertion that my backup must be accepted as me, but
> what of those in favor of my latter position?
They won't agree.
> They will argue, rightly, that my backup is not an accurate backup
> of the person who would have voted on the issue and that his vote
> must be considered invalid. How will you answer them?
I won't bother answering them.
> It's hardly satisfactory to sweep the issue under the rug by decreeing a
> new law ("Corbin's law"). You need to justify such a law.
If they do ask me to decide, then I will, that's all.
> > Are you asking whether the person who got himself backed up survived?
>
> I'm asking why the American people should accept my survival as fact (as
> you would have it be) given that my backup holds to a different position
> than I had at my time of death on this one political question.
Error. If the backup is from a long time ago, then it's not
clear (or shouldn't be clear) to anyone that it's definitely
the same person. If the backup was from yesterday, then in
almost all cases no one will argue whether or not it's the
same person. Yes, there are unusual circumstances, but, well,
they're unusual. How often are you bothered by the fact that
a Senator has changed his vote, or has come back from a nap?
Do you believe that we require a new election since he's not
the same person anymore?
> > Either legally the senator can claim to be the same person or
> > he cannot.
>
> How would a court decide if his claim to be me were valid?
That's their problem, not mine. As I say, if the backup is from
yesterday, his lawyers could make a convincing case. The personal
testimony from friends and relatives would help them. But this is
a legal question, not a philosophical one.
> Wouldn't the judge look at the public record and hear the testimonies
> of those who knew me well and who interacted with me after my last
> backup, and see that my restored backup has a different position
> than that held by me at the time of my death, and therefore rule
> that my backup is not actually me? Of course she would!
No, he might not. Sometimes a senator changes his mind all
of a sudden. I think that what someone might want to present
to the court is evidence that the senator is not the one
elected by the people. If the senator's backup is from a
time too far removed in the past, then they might win their
case. Otherwise, the law sensibly allows congresspeople to
retain their seats even if they undergo religious conversion.
> > So, gts, suppose a senator has brain damage. Who decides
> > whether he can finish his term. The fate of the world depends
> > on this. YOU MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHO DECIDES???
>
> If it were a matter of public dispute then I believe a judge
> would decide competency based on the testimony of expert witnesses,
> namely the testimony of the senator's physicians and/or physicians
> appointed by the court.
Funny that you wouldn't accept my equivalent answer.
> > I have no idea who decides in this hypothetical situation.
> > Perhaps if you tell me the political situation in greater
> > detail, I could guess. Right now, my guess would be "the
> > Senate decides".
>
> The Senate is divided down the middle on this issue. Those in favor of
> my publicly announced position at my time of death would be inclined to
> argue that my backup is not me because he holds to my previous position.
> Those in favor of my old publicly announced position might try to argue
> that my backup is really me.
So what else is new?
> > But my guess is also that I am missing your point.
>
> The point is to show you what a political and logical mess you have
> created for the American people by asserting that the delayed backup
> Senator has the same identity as the deceased Senator.
Laws and concepts constantly have to change as a result of
new technology. I suppose that you want to ban cloning for
the same reason.
> > The answer to this in general cannot be a "yes" or "no"
>
> Sorry but the American people demand a yes or no answer to the question
> of whether my backup is me or not. If yes then his vote is valid. If no
> then it's invalid.
Okay, make it "yes" then.
> > It's a matter of degree.
>
> No, it's not a matter of degree. Either my backup's vote on the Iraq
> issue should be considered valid or else it should be considered
> invalid.
The court (or the senate) should decide the issue.
> > If a person X at time t1 gets himself
> > backed up, and then becomes person Y at time t2, the intelligent
> > question is, "to what degree is X the same person as Y?"
>
> No. I believe the only intelligent answer is that X does not equal Y.
> One might then discuss similarities between X and Y, but it would be
> irrational to say X is Y.
Is a senator voting today the same person that the entity
going by the same name was yesterday? If he's not the same
person, why should he be allowed to step in for the elected
representative?
(Jeez this is a stupid dialog.)
> > But I think that you believe the answer to that question to be
> > zero if t2-t1 > 10^-43 seconds. Is that right?
>
> Yes, X would equal Y if there were no difference between X and Y, which
> for dynamically changing humans can happen only if X was copied within
> one unit of planck time such that every atom and particle of Y is in the
> same quantum state as those of X. X would then diverge from Y in the
> next unit of planck time, such that X would no longer equal Y.
Since you say that it's not a matter of degree, why do we keep
thinking that gts is a constant person and Lee is a constant
person?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:04 MST