From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 20:56:18 MST
gts writes
> >> 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.
>
> You ought to care, Lee. You, after all, are the scientist/philosopher
> who foisted this bizarre idea on the American public. You were the one
> who asserted that delayed backups should be considered as having the
> same identity as the deceased.
Alas, again, we see here illustrated the dangers of having
read too little SF in one's youth. You cannot blame a
philosopher for the quandaries that would result from a
technological innovation. Suppose some fantastic breakthrough
occurred tomorrow, and any number of people began getting
themselves backed up. Let X be some such individual and
suppose that X is backed up right after breakfast, and
then dies in a traffic accident on the way to work. The
monitoring apparatus attached to X's body remotely activate
the backup. Aware of all the facts, X' at once assumes
X's identity whether you approve of it or not. It might
be days before the people at work, X's spouse, or anyone
else knows for sure about the accident.
Let's see who would object to X' usurping X's role. Suppose
---as in the recent case of Ted Williams---that someone
intending to inherit X's assets objects, and claims that
X is not the same person.
Long, long before any of this happens, however, laws will
have been written anticipating this event. All those wishing
to take advantage of backup technology will favor enactment
of the necessary laws to make sure that in cases such as the
above, X' can assume X's identity. Moreover, employers will
support this kind of legislation. Friends of potential
backups will support it. The only persons that I can think
of who would not support this are (1) the religiously inclined
who can see where such things are heading and who wish to
avoid the ultimate implications for their religions (2)
alienated relatives or spouses who hope a someone dies and
loses custody of assets or children. Who else, besides
disgruntled philosophers such as yourself, can you think of
who would oppose such a law?
This is *not* to say that no difficult cases would occur.
Don't insult my intelligence by thinking that I'm not aware
of that. In fact, good science fiction systematically
exploits difficult situations in precisely scenarios such
as this. Suppose, for example, that a young man has himself
backed up, but then repudiates the entire concept and tries
to have his backup annihilated. His loving wife, however,
cannot stand the thought of losing him, and secretly defies
his wishes with the help of some of his friends. When the
now aged man dies, they cause his backup to be activated.
They and the backup wish him to retain (or obtain, however
you look at it) rights to his property. However, his
children, who covet his property go to court and present
evidence that the backup should not get the property.
They submit evidence that in many important ways, the
backup is not the same person. I'm afraid that in such
a difficult case, I would be as torn as are many judges
in child-custody cases.
> The observation that opinions will differ does not answer the question
> of which opinion is correct. It does not answer the question of whether
> the backup Senator is the same person as the Senator who died.
I have said repeatedly---from the very outset in fact---that in
my opinion a recent backup ought to be considered to be the
same person, unless evidence could be gathered that would tend
to cause reasonable persons to begin to doubt that it was the
same person. (By "reasonable people", I mean all of those who
would assure you that President Bush is the same person today
that he was last week.) Perhaps you wonder *how* recent; the
more recent the less doubt that reasonable people would in
fact have in real situations that they were dealing with the
same person.
> This statement of yours above, and the rest of your message, follow the
> same evasive pattern.
This is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE according to your logic, isn't it?
Why do you persist in associating me with earlier versions
of Lee Corbin? I thought that by your lights I am not the
same person from nanosecond to nanosecond, much less from
day to day.
> It appears, Lee, that you just don't want to own up to the
> massive logical and political mess that you created when you
> asserted that delayed backups have the same identity as the
> deceased.
Yeah, well I described what would happen were the technology
to obtain. You would probably have made the same warnings
about frozen embryos, and blamed the philosophers for the
legal mess that would ensue.
By the way, what do you mean, "delayed backups"? Are you
still on the silly 10^-43 second meaning of "backup"? I
cannot conceive of any situation where that would be a
real issue.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:04 MST