From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 17:12:27 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>> Even you would agree that his subjective idea of himself is
>> critical to his identity.
>
> ### No, this thread is not about pennies. It's about personal
> identity. Personal identity does not include your bank account.
> No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Try explaining that to Mr. Hefner! Do you think he would have the same
idea of himself if he lost everything he owned as result of some
half-baked duplication experiment performed on him? As I said, his
concept of himself would change drastically, and you are the one who
wants to argue that identity is determined subjectively.
If and when we upload ourselves, I should hope that we also have a way
to upload proxies for our property and wealth in some way. Those who
contribute most to society should be rewarded for it, in this world or
the next.
(Granted, many pious people might argue that Hugh Hefner has contributed
nothing to society, but you know what I mean. :)
This subject of the importance of personal property to identity is
probably suitable for another thread. For now I will set it aside and
accept your position, with prejudice.
> ### No, no need for corrections. Reciprocal exchange of data
> would preserve memories of both persons, including the memories
> of the exchange process, with full convergence of values and
> opinions. At which point does Mr. Hefner stop being himself?
The key question here is who you would consider yourself to be while you
where accessing Hefner's data.
Would you be thinking "Here I am, Rafal Smigrodzki, experiencing Hugh
Hefner's memories and current experience and current personality and
current body"?
Or would you be thinking "Here I am, Hugh Hefner, experiencing Hugh
Hefner's memories and current experience and current personality and
current body"?
If the former then you are Rafal. If the latter then you are Hugh
Hefner. If neither then you are neither Rafal nor Hefner, both of whom
are now dead and replaced by something else entirely.
>>>> If you bifurcated into two people, Rafal-1 and Rafal-2, and
>>>> Rafal-2 committed a crime against me, then I would not hold
>>>> Rafal-1 responsible. I would consider Rafal-1 innocent
>>>> regardless of what Rafal-1 thought about his identity. If
>>>> Rafal-1 wanted to accept responsibility for Rafal-2's criminal
>>>> acts then I would consider him deluded and take pity on him.
>
> ### The answer to my question can be "Yes", "No", "Depends", or
> "I don't know". Which one of these does anecdote above mean?
It means "No." I would not coerce you into considering yourself
different people. Nor would I allow you to coerce me into treating you
as one person. I would not press charges against you if your copy
committed a crime against me, unless I had reason to believe you were an
accomplice.
> ### How do you prove conspiracy? I didn't talk to the copy. I
> bought the stuff from another person. I don't know how it ended
> up in his possession.
In that case you're innocent. However in your previous message you gave
me evidence of your criminal intent to spawn a copy to rob me of my
possessions, which is evidence of a conspiracy.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:18 MST