<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>RE: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Russell Wallace wrote on the perennial topic of personal identity:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">I saw this when rummaging through the archives, and didn't see a reply, and it's been gnawing at me as the one such paradox I don't have a satisfactory answer for. I'm going to rephrase it in more vivid terms that I find help make it clearer:</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"><snip></FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">So, here are your options:</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">A: I turn you into a frog.<BR>
</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">B: I run off a copy of you. In case you're a threadist, I'll do it atom by atom, neuron by neuron, symmetrically, with thread of consciousness unbroken throughout, such that there will be two of you at the end and neither objectively nor subjectively will it be possible to tell which is the original and which is the copy (and in case you're a substratist, all copies will continue to be made of carbon compounds in water just like before, no uploading into silicon chips), so you should equally expect to be either. Then I will let one copy go free, but similarly multiply the other into 999. And then I will take all 999 to hell and make them write essays on postmodernist literature! Muhahaha!</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">(Option A is ruled out since being a frog doesn't do much for ones future.)</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">"But," you continue to muse, "let's look at the situation tomorrow in that event. There will be 1 copy of me free, and 999 undergoing horrible torture. There will be no objective fact of the matter as to what the copying sequence was. The only objective fact will be that 0.1% of my instances will be free and 99.9% will be tortured. Therefore I should estimate a 99.9% probability that I'll be tortured. Compared to that, being turned into a frog doesn't sound so bad after all."</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Here's where the confusion becomes apparent. It's the usual confusion between objective and subjective points of view, reinforced by culture, language, and personal experience. It's Descartes'' error in not so subtle disguise, the assumption within "cogito, ergo sum" that *I* am experiencing, rather than the more defensible assertion that *some process* seems to be reporting on an experience.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT></SPAN>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">I'm assuming for the sake of the thought experiment that you're Homo economicus, only concerned about what you personally will experience,</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">What is this "you" that is spoken of, Human? The "Self" which is held so dearly is only a conceptual locus, not an intrinsic property of matter.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">that you don't value maximizing copies for its own sake etc; the question is whether in case B you should estimate the probability that you will be forced to write essays on postmodernist literature versus being allowed to go free at 50/50 or 99.9/0.1.</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT></SPAN>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Now to a threadist the first line of reasoning seems correct, the thread of consciousness splits 50/50 and after that who cares what happens to the other thread that isn't you? So I'll understand perfectly if threadists reply "fetchez la vache!".</FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Thread of consciousness is a useful concept, but it's misused here. Earlier it was clearly stated that there would be no way to distinguish among the copies, so the (often useful) concept of Self can't apply here. Or if it were to apply, it would have to apply equally to all copies and therefore be equally meaningless. Self is not something intrinsic, it is only the point of view of an agent, and since an agent, by definition, must be able to intentionally affect its environment, the concept of agent (and by extension, Self) does not apply to independent copies.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">So, the logically consistent way to look at the above situation must be from the third party point of view: That the future scenario would contain one individual indistinguishable from you, and 99 new individuals being tortured.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">So the question (which must remain in the third person POV)is whether you would prefer a future with (A) your agency contained within the body of a frog, or (B) the creation of 99 individuals (who happen to be very similar to you) who are being tortured.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Makes sense?</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">Paradox is always a matter of insufficient context. In the bigger picture, all the pieces must fit.</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New"> </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">- Jef</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>