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

[Randall Randall]

On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:57 AM, John K Clark wrote:

> Me:
>>> If I place you (the copy) and the original an  equal distance
>>> from the center of a symmetrical room so you see the same
>>> things and then instantly swap your bodies position with the
>>> original then neither you nor the original nor any outside
>>> observer could detect the slightest change. There was no
>>> change because although there were 2 bodies in the room
>>> there was only one person.
>
> Randall Randall" <randall at randallsquared.com>
>
>> This appears to be the argument that had the Soviets been perfectly
>> successful in erasing all records of Trotsky, he would really not  
>> have
>> been there.
>
> That's true, it you erased all records of Trotsky then Trotsky  
> would never
> have been, however it is physically imposable to do so.

It's possible, hypothetically, to erase all record to the level at which
no person can ever know that Trotsky existed, and that's all that's  
required
for this thought experiment.  I find it deeply weird that you suggest  
that
if no one knows or has the capability to find out a fact, that fact  
ceases
to exist.  But the assertion that you believe this does point out the  
futility
of trying to show otherwise, doesn't it?

> But to be honest I doubt if any of those thoughts would enter my  
> head in the
> split second I had to jump to safety. The real reason I'd get out  
> of the way
> is because that's the way my brain is wired, and it's wired that  
> way because
> if it were not creatures like me would never have evolved.

And that's why I included the bit you snipped about the random number
generator.  Of course, you may be saying that "this unit" of John K  
Clark
with which I'm speaking would try to continue to exist regardless of the
fate of other units, but if so, then your position reduces to mine.

>> You feel that all processes of the person-type you call John K  
>> Clark are
>> equivalent for all purposes, where we would say that they are only
>> equivalent for non-subjective purposes.
>
> But there is no way you can be correct, absolutely positively no  
> way. In my
> thought experiment I had you (the copy) and the original standing  
> an equal
> distance from the center of a symmetrical room. I use a Star Trek  
> brand
> transporter to instantly exchange your positions, or if you prefer  
> I leave
> your bodies alone and just exchange the two brains. There is no way
> subjectively you would notice that anything had happened, and  
> objective
> outside observers would not notice anything had happened. There  
> would not
> even be a way to tell if the machine was actually working. If  
> objectively it
> makes no difference and subjectively if makes no difference then I  
> conclude
> it just makes no damn difference.

If you remove one unit (by not reconstituting it on one swap, for  
example),
then it's clear that the number of units of "Randall Randall" has  
decreased
by half, yes?  In this case, announcing you're going to do this ahead of
time means *each unit* has a fifty percent chance of continuing to  
exist.
Let me assure you that this would cause both units great concern, and no
amount of pleading that the surviving unit wouldn't notice anything  
wrong
would help.

--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"If we have matter duplicators, will each of us be a sovereign
  and possess a hydrogen bomb?" -- Jerry Pournelle