[ExI] [tt] Identity thread again

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 00:18:35 UTC 2015

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:24 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> One 'Rafal' owns all their resources and takes all the decisions. No
> problem with having lots of sub-routines that deal with specific
> functions or learn new techniques. Just like present day humans. Or an
> upload mind with many non-conscious AI robot agents. (I like this
> option).

### Let's assume we are talking about making actual copies - minds
sufficiently similar to be substitutable for the original in all functional
tests. Making partial copies, such as ones that would pay fealty to the
unrestricted original, would be a different discussion.

In this situation, there is an interesting self-referential dynamic: Minds
with high levels of dominance, low agreeableness, high impulsivity, would
hardly benefit from copying. All they would get would be another asshole
around, one that knows all their secrets. Presumably such minds would opt
for copying only slave sub-selves. On the other hand, minds with low
dominance, agreeable, and capable of perceiving external processes (i.e.
other minds) as valuable, will potentially benefit enormously from copying,
by gaining trustworthy cooperators who literally know their mind.

This may inform our predictions about the future of self-copying (as
opposed to slave-sub-self-copying).


> But these sub-routines are not conscious 'people'. New agents can be
> created as required, altered, temporarily put to sleep, or deleted. No
> worries. But it is unethical to do similar actions with 'people'.
> If you create many conscious 'Rafal' persons then they all have equal
> rights to continued existence and to control the original Rafal
> resources. So you would need some sort of bureaucracy (United
> Nations?) to reach agreement on developments, spending, research,
> investments, etc.

### Not really. Why should you bother about what I do with myself? I may
decide to break my leg. I may decide to make a copy of myself and break one
of our (four) legs. Either way, it's my business, since there are no other
people involved (remember, we are talking about copies that can substitute
for the original in all tests). Of course, people are meddlesome, and they
will try to enact laws interfering in the internal affairs of copy-clans.
There may be a fight sometime in the future. I predict that copy-clans that
tell others to go screw themselves would prevail. Why? Copy-clans are
likely to have a very simple and efficient governance, their constituents
love and trust each other, and therefore they will be able to act very
quickly, in a coordinated and effective manner. Those who want to prohibit
copying are disparate individuals with the regular, crappy kind of
governance we see today, rife with internal contradictions and feuding.
Copy clans will run circles around them.

Please note that I am not making deontological claims, consequentialist
claims, or indeed any normative claims at all. I am just predicting that a
more efficient form of governance will steamroll less efficient ones,
regardless of what this or that person may feel is right or wrong.


> This looks cumbersome to me. And each 'Rafal' feels
> poorer by having to share resources and perhaps have their preferences
> over-ruled by the majority. Though if manyl are creating additional
> resources, there should be minimal resource restrictions.
> But I doubt if libertarians would prefer this 'hive-mind' option.

### I don't mind if the hive is myself. I like myself. I am happy to share
with myself, and know how not to piss myself off. I would not over-rule my
own preferences (there is something mind-twistingly impossible in trying to
imagine how such over-ruling could take place). I would hate to be eaten
and incorporated by a hive of my enemies but I would be happy to grow into
a hive of myself and my friends.


> And then there is the reaction of the rest of humanity to consider.
> Some of these options might be considered as almost a declaration of
> war. With the usual consequences.

### Why would anybody want to go to war with me? I pay my bills, I don't
take what's not mine, and I don't vote. Why would anybody go to war with
more me's? Mere act of copying wouldn't mean I would start stealing. I
would only copy myself if I had enough resources to support more of
myselves. Just today my agent joked she'd like to clone me so she could
send me to more hospitals simultaneously (I am booked till December and
some of my old clients are clamoring to get me back). Little did she know
how close to the truth she was.

I would predict that jerks will try to build hierarchical hives of crippled
sub-selves and twisted, stolen copies of others, driven by mad ambition and
fear. Morally neutral persons like me (I am not good, but then I am not
evil either) will build large, happy families. Traditionalists will just
vote for a Clinton or a Bush, forever. We'll see who wins.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150323/81fcd710/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list