[extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?

[Lee Corbin]

John writes

> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
> 
>> I would say that we could familiarize someone with all that is known about
>> Napoleon (which is far, far short of what the actual historical Napoleon
>> knew about himself), then hypnotize this actor to believe that he is the
>> real Napoleon. But then we would *not* have resurrected the real McCoy.
> 
> A good thought experiment should only investigate one thing at a time or
> things become too muddy to be useful. Up to now we have investigated a
> perfect copy, or at least as perfect as Mr. Hinesburg allows. But now you
> start talking about a crappy copy, a very crappy copy indeed....

Yes, sorry---it could clearly have been done with fewer words.

> I don't recall if I specifically said that the copying process must be done
> with some skill before I was comfortable with it, but it was certainly implied;

Oh, of course it was.  I'm only attacking your statement that "subjectivity"
can be any requirement.  Our new hypnotized mental patient with an 
incredible memory of what the real Napoleon did subjectively believes
he's Napoleon just as much as the real Napoleon once did.  Only our
new "Napoleon" is simpy mistaken. But it's not possible to say that he
has a different "subjectivity" about the question, at least insofar as that
makes much sense to me.

> Me:
>>>you lambasted me for saying the High Priest thought atoms were sacred, but
>>>in your above quotation you throw around the word "replaced" as if the
>>>meaning were obvious; but what is actually being  "replaced"?
> 
> You:
>> You are replaced (even by your exact duplicate) if your historical
>> collection of atoms are physically seized and terminated, and replaced by
>> something or some one.
> 
> Read the above again, it says you are replaced if you are replaced. While I
> certainly agree that is true I don't find it terribly useful.

Heh, heh.  Yes, I didn't see the circularity  :-)    Okay, it's fun, so let me try
again: ahem, You are replaced if your historical collection of atoms at any
point in time is physically seized, terminated, and deposited in a trash heap,
and someone else, something else, some other collection of atoms is at once
brought to the precise physical location you once held.

>> Where you and I agree (and peculiarly, so many people do not due, I think
>> to certain things they learned before age 1 that they have not been able
>> to  overcome), that if you (your present collection of atoms) are replaced
>> in   the sense that I just said by an exact duplicate, then it does not
>> matter.
> 
> Huh? Then what are we arguing about?

Just (1) your attacking Heartland for things that he didn't (and still does not)
believe, which is a waste of bandwith and muddies progress that we  can
make, and (2) your employing for the purpose a very dubious concept of
"subjectivity" for the purpose.  That's all.

(Now it is *also* true that IIRC you and I have substantial and profound
disagreements about whether it's wise to allow oneself to be replaced by
a recent copy say, a day different that one.  Precisely, if it's now Wednesday
and a copy of you was made Tuesday (and has been resting comfortably in
a Las Vegas hotel room), and the Universe will not permit there to be two
instances of said person on Thursday, then one instance really *should*
sacrifice itself so that the instance of himself gets $10M, rather than merely
allow the other Las Vegas version to be vaporized.  But 'tis true that we 
were not back to that old disagreement in the present war with Heartland,
where you and I are completely on the same side.)

> "Replaced" means exchanging something with something different, exchanging
> something with an exact copy means absolutely positively NOTHING has
> happened. This is not empty rhetoric, it is the key idea behind "exchange
> forces", one of the foundations of modern Physics.  For more Google
> "Identity Of Indiscernibles" or "Leibniz".

I totally agree, up to, of course, as you said, the limits imposed by
Mr. Hindbutt. But even those fine quantum distinctions matter not
a whit to me---hell, I'm satisfied to lose a few hours' memory for
$10M, or, what is the same thing to me, that I get replaced by
a frozen version of myself made yesterday (so long as the money
is indeed placed into our bank account).

>> I don't get it, John.  That guy has said over and over that the atoms are
>> not the problem
> 
> True, Heartland has said over and over that atoms are not the problem, and
> he has said over and over that atoms are the problem. Then he took a
> different tack and said the problem is discontinuity in the thought process;
> but only objective discontinuity is important, the fact that it would be
> imposable to subjectively detect this objective discontinuity is irrelevant
> to subjectivity....

Well, maybe he has been or maybe he has not been changing his tune. It
doesn't matter.   We need to target the current state of his beliefs to the
degree that we find that *they* are inconsistent, or merely---as I suggest
---fundamentally awkward and difficult to support.

> Let me repeat that, according to Heartland subjective experience is
> unimportant to subjectivity! And that my friend does not make
> one tiny particle of sense.

I don't know why you keep going back to this "subjectivity" crap, 
nor what it means. Thought I do look forward to another possible
opportunity for a lambasting.

>> any cessation of process is equal to death to him.
> 
> And so going to the dentist is a death sentence to him.

Huh?  I don't think so!  There is a continuous process in the dentist's
chair, and unless the dentist uses anesthesia so powerful that it
flatlines Slawomir for a while, he's not really afraid of dentists
vis-a-vis identity.

>> I can't find exactly what set me off
> 
> You said it on 4-28. Apparently what set you off was when I said:
> 
> " According to him the whole ball game is something that is imposable to
> detect subjectively but nevertheless (for reasons never explained) I should
> be very concerned about it, subjectively. To say this is silly is a vast
> understatement."

Hmm.  Maybe.  But that doesn't sound like "begging the question". Maybe
I had confused your earlier remarks with someone elses.  Again, I am here
only objecting to what "subjectivity" has to do with it, unless you can explain
and make it useful.  And---again---I object to characterizing his beliefs 
as having anything to do with atoms:

In fact---Slawomir correct me if I am wrong---he's perfectly aware that he
loses and gains atoms every day by the hundreds of trillions, and at least
billions with every breath.  But since it's a continual process, it doesn't
halt or suspect the total Slawomir process---and that's his current criterion
for his own survival.

Lee