[ExI] Let's play What If.
sparge at gmail.com
Wed Oct 27 17:38:12 UTC 2010
2010/10/27 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Dave Sill wrote:
> But we're talking about an original and an upload
> And neither would know which is which unless you told them, and even then
> they probably wouldn't believe you; both would probably insist they were the
> original regardless of the evidence, but I wouldn't because I don't care if
> I'm the original or the copy.
That assumes a lot of things, primarily that the upload universe is
indistinguishable from the real universe. Another is that no attempt is
made, as part of the uploading process, to make the upload aware that it is,
in fact, an upload. I consider that immorally deceptive. I'd never agree to
allow a non-destructive upload of myself without it being made clear to the
upload immediately upon activation that that's what it is.
> so there would be two separate beings as soon as the upload is activated
> There would be only one conscious experience provided the two were
How's that? You've got two independent instantiations running on completely
different substrates and you don't think there are two different
consciousnesses? Even if there were two uploads running in identical,
synchronized virtual realities, there'd still be two different-but-identical
> The upload could be aware that it's a virtual copy and consider itself a
> fork of the original
> Then one would be aware of something that the other is not so the two would
> no longer be identical.
> and unable to claim that it *is* the original.
> The original what?
The consciousness running on the original, non-virtual substrate.
> It can't be the original atoms since neither entity owns them they just
> rent them, and it can't be original information since both embody the same
> information; so what exactly is so original about the original?
Where it lives is different.
> And I can point to something that is not a thought experiment but actually
> happens, when a one cell ameba reproduces it splits in have and then the two
> half's grow back to their previous size, it is not meaningful to ask which
> is the original and which is the copy.
Great, but that's not the thought experiment that started this thread.
> Also, the law may well not grant both entities the same rights.
> I was talking about logic and you're talking about the law, the two have
> absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Good one, John. But legal issues are important nonetheless.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat