[extropy-chat] Identity (was: Survival tangent)

[Lee Corbin]

Randall writes

>> But I say that these [very low order pain & fright reactions]
>> are only "lower-order" aspects of one,
>> and are not representative of who I truly am. If the scenario
>> becomes less graphic, [no tiger bounding into the room or
>> no Nurse Ratchet with a big needle] and one of [Lee's 
>> duplicates or the Lee original] must press a button
>> and be disintegrated, then all of us would be indifferent as to
>> who did so.  If the button were in the room, we'd all reach
>> for it, with the understanding that the last 999,999 would
>> not be disintegrated.  No instance would actually care a
>> whit.
> 
> Whereas all million units of Randall  (using the below exchange
> as my guide) would be trying to figure out how to avoid button
> pressing at all.

By hypothesis, one would be selected at random and perish, as
of course you understand.

>>> If you don't agree that the runtime lost would indeed be
>>> infinitesimal,
>>
>> But it's not infinitesimal:  it's one whole unit of John Clark or
>> Lee Corbin.
> 
> If you're willing to use this argument, then everything I would
> say can be rephrased as "unit" rather than "person", and my own
> concern is that this particular unit of Randall Randall continue.

Slawomir and you agree with at least one other poster whose 
name I've temporarily forgotten:  you value the instance rather
than the pattern.  But you do have to contend, I still think,
with all sorts of crafty experiments drawn up by John Clark
and those like us.

True, Randall, I have seen you try to rebut these. But look at
John Clark's posts just now;  they clearly do away with your
instance, but it's still clear that you survive by any  normal
meaning of words.

> I'm not sure that this terminology change actually adds anything,
> however.

"Unit" (which I just used) is the same as the more common "instance".
It does clarify.  It states what you and the people who agree with
you would do in certain thought experiments.

Lee