<!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="Arial">Mike Dougherty</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> made some interesting observations:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Has anyone considered the computational value of 999 copies of your current level of intellect and problem solving potential? </FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"> </SPAN>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I don't know what the break-even point is on the value of existentially "free" threads compared to hell-constrained threads, but it seems obvious that the Satanic motivation for this thought puzzle would violate any promise to clone only a minimal number of copies where this ratio would be in your favor. So I will assume that 999 extra copies is sufficiently many extra threads of subjective Hell to outweigh the value of your meager singular 'free' experience. </FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Okay... then who is this person, necessarily outside the system, who is able to access and evaluate the value of these 999 + 1 subjective experiences? It doesn't matter whether you have duplicates throughout the earth or throughout the multiverse, decision-making implies agency, and agency implies a single point of view.</FONT> </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"> </SPAN>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Would this puzzle be any different if the 999 "others" were not clones of yourself? </FONT></SPAN>
</P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Good question. Might help clarify the point I've been trying to make that similarity does not imply shared agency.</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"> </SPAN>
<UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Is there a parallel here to the idea of licensing your pattern? If the evolved-over-(your-life)-time configuration of your brain is a pattern which determines your approach to problem-solving, then allowing a second party to possess a copy of that pattern gives them the ability to use it for their own purpose. Imagine everything you are capable of, including the things which you are morally opposed to doing despite having the capability. This Satan character is employing those copies to do exactly those jobs. (Assume Satan grew tired of you postmodernist literature essays) If the RIAA can protect the pattern of bits that make up a CD, surely we must be allowed to protect the pattern of our own neural algorithms. This puts a new spin on the term "Intellectual Property." </FONT></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Interesting idea, and the precedent is that we do license our problem solving capabilities when we act as paid consultants. A difficulty with licensing ones pattern with the same negligible cost as with duplicating software might be that one should be entitled to sell only the novel parts, not the parts acquired directly from other sources such as other consultants, schooling, books, movies, conversations with friends, the overall environment…oops, never mind. It appears that such growth opportunities must be evaluated within a more encompassing context than our current system of trade.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">- Jef</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"> </SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"> </SPAN>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>