From: Joe Jenkins (joe_jenkins@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 23 1998 - 16:40:16 MDT
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 "Peter C. McCluskey":
>I think the important question is whether the person involved should
>consider consenting to such a termination the same way we currently
>consider suicide objectionable.
I wrote on Tue, 14 Jul 1998:
>I would go to great lengths to ensure that the information processing
I >call ME was not being processed by a duplicate. Shortly after two
ME >processes diverged there would be two instances of an individual
calling >himself Joe Jenkins. This individual would be accustomed to
ownership of >all Joe Jenkins' property. He would be accustomed to
relationships with >my relatives, and insist on living in my house,
and sleeping with my wife. > He would know many secrets that I prefer
kept out of the hands of someone >who might eventually have a conflict
of interest with me. On >thanksgiving, two people would show up at my
parents house claiming my >identity.
My earlier post above gave just a short sample of reasons an
individual would not want to diverge two copies. Give it a few
minutes of thought and you could come up with many more. Short of
dividing my wealth, one of the copies would be destitute. Most people
are not in a financial position to comfortably wing its division.
I've seen a lot of talk in this thread about the original being
murdered shortly after the copy upload is completed. I get irritated
when I see the word MURDER come up in this context. Short-term memory
suicide is NOT murder. It is by definition voluntary and falls within
libertarian principles. Some of us are so jaded with the issues, we
occasionally let the word murder or the issue of murder slip into
these discussions for dramatic purposes. Like:
On Sun, 19 Jul John K Clark johnkc@well.com wrote:
>I thought he was trying to mock me, so I reached for my 44 magnum
that I >always carry with me (I wonder why people think I'm strange)
and pointed >it at him. I noted with alarm that my double also had
found a gun and he >was pointed it at me. I shouted "you don't have
the guts to pull the >trigger, but I do". Again he mimicked my words
and did so in perfect >synchronization, this made me even more angry.
I pulled the trigger, he >did too, my gun went off, his gun jammed, I
buried him in my back yard.
In this case it was short term memory murder (if you can call that
murder) rather than short term memory suicide. But the character here
was not IMO acting rationally and therefore should not have been given
the name John K Clark. Both John K Clark's either would or would not
want a duplicate to diverge. If divergence was undesirable, the only
rational thing would be for one to commit short-term memory suicide.
BOTH rational John K Clark's would be willing to do this provided the
other stayed alive. As was the main point of my "Harvey Newstrom vs.
United Utilitarians PPL" post. The decision of which one "snuffs it"
would be trivial to both rational copies. Therefore, the fiction
above propagates a fallacy of competition between the two copies when
there is in fact no conflict of interest shortly after duplication.
This fallacy is dangerously infectious to many who are new to the
issues and IMO should be carefully avoided.
If two copies are allowed to diverge more than a short time, the
issues get messier. After a year of divergence, Mr. Original and Mr.
Copy would have to consider how much they have changed in personality,
acquired knowledge, worldview, etc. and each would have to decide if
not having a divergent copy is more valuable than losing what was
acquired in that time frame. Now we have a possible conflict of
interest that could lead to limited murder. That is, a medium-term
(memory/individual change) murder. Nevertheless, up until a certain
point during the process of divergence, both copies value their
short-term memories and personal growth changes SO LITTLE there is no
conflict of interest. The amount of time of divergence for this
problem to be incurred would be different for each individual and only
they could use their value system to determine the breaking point.
But I think it is fair to say that most of the scenarios discussed in
this thread have been before that breaking point (including John
Clarks fiction) and I think the word murder or even suicide (as
opposed to short term memory suicide) is misleading, inappropriate,
and confusing to new-comers.
This subject is so dependent on our own values and so critical and
life threatening that it is difficult to spoon-feed the uninitiated
with the issues. So we all end up talking past each other in
frustration. That's why I sort-of butted out after making my two
posts "Uploading for Dummies" and "Harvey Newstrom vs. United
Utilitarians PPL". In those two posts, I virtually made the same
points I've made here but I felt like I was talking past the recipient
when the only response I got was:
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 harv@gate.net (Harvey Newstrom) wrote:
>I don't know what to say... except maybe that fictionalization is
the >sincerest form of flattery???
As a result, I'm trying to spell it out a bit more clearly here.
Another issue we have talked a little less about in this thread (this
time around) is when the original DESIRES to have multiple copies
diverge. Again, this is a value-oriented decision that has a lot to
do with the circumstances. The circumstance easiest to imagine is
during space colonization. The financial problem could be overcome by
collaboration with friends. Lets say five friends are each able to
completely finance a space colonization trip for a party of five.
Everyone could make four copies of himself or herself and five ships
could head off in five different directions with a full party of five
each. When they get to the "far side party" after much time has past,
and all 25 participants meet again, the conflict of interests would
probably be nil due to the great amount of divergence by historical
accident. It would be interesting to see the differences in pecking
order and niche filling that evolved among the five groups, no?
Anyway, it is remarkable to see how the conflict of interest could be
nil with very little divergence then become substantial with medium
divergence and then come full circle to nil again with much divergence.
Joe Jenkins
joe_jenkins@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:23 MST