From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 15:22:19 MST
gts wrote:
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> ### You seem to mean something different from most people when
>> you are talking about "identity" - now it is something that
>> includes personal property. Well, no surprise we cannot seem to
>> agree.
>
> The idea that personal property is an extension of the person is not
> something I just pulled from a hat. It is the legal definition of
> personal property, and for good reason.
>
> Consider how Hugh Hefner would perceive himself if he suddenly lost
> his property and business empire as the result of some act by you
> made in an attempt to replace him but without his property. Would he
> consider his new property-less self to be the same person he was
> before? Of course not. He would consider himself to be a penniless
> intransigent, whereas he was once a wealthy business mogul. His
> self-concept would have changed drastically as a result of your
> effort, and who are we to over-ride Hugh Hefner's own self-concept?
> 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.
-------
>
>>> No, I'm saying that if you want to be Hugh Hefner at time t then
>>> you must have and be everything that Hugh Hefner has and is at
>>> time t.
>>
>> ### So I need to buy a silk pajamas to be Hugh Hefner?
>
> If Hugh Hefner is wearing silk pajamas tonight, and you want to be
> Hugh Hefner tonight, then you had better get yourself some silk
> pajamas.
### Sorry, I'll treat the above as a joke.
-------
>
>>> I don't believe he would ever stop being himself in this
>>> scenario you describe. He would merely become Hugh Hefner with
>>> access to Rafal Smigrodzki's memories. Those memories of yours
>>> might just as well be on DVD's on the shelf in his library.
>>
>> ### No, I wrote "our data structures are identical", meaning much
>> more than mere memories are identical. I meant the full content
>> of subjective experience. At which point does Mr. Hefner stop
>> being Mr. Hefner?
>
> If you really meant "the full content of subjective experience" then
> you need to go back and correct one of your original conditions, in
> which you stated that you would still be aware of your own memories
> and personal history despite your access to Hugh Hefner's data
> structures. Presumably this would mean you were also still aware of
> your own beliefs and values and opinions (i.e., aware of your own
> personality even while accessing Hugh Hefner's records).
### 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?
------
>
>>>> ### It's OK if you see it as the only correct approach to your
>>>> own identity - but what I really want to know, is whether you
>>>> also think *I* am obliged to treat myself this way.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is after all the million dollar question.
>>
>> ### You dodged it. Would you use the means of coercion at your
>> disposal to stop me from claiming identity with my synched copies?
>
> No I didn't dodge it. My answer was in the following paragraph:
>
>>> 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?
--------
>>>
>> ### Actually, this is good. It means I can spawn a copy, rob you,
>> and enjoy the loot, letting you take the body of the copy (which
>> would self-terminate after the robbery). I like your idea of
>> identity, after all. It's useful to me.
>
> If you spawned a copy and that copy robbed me and gave the loot to
> you, then I would prosecute your copy for theft and you for
> conspiracy and for receiving stolen property.
### 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.
-------
>
> By the way your copy is not going to "self-terminate" (commit suicide)
> merely because you tell him to do so.
>
### Of course he will. He doesn't want to be in prison, and knows suicide is
not real death, as long as I am around.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:18 MST