5 ms·

A lot of fiction that deals with consciousness copies finds that copies are far more willing to "die" knowing that another instance of the pattern will live on.

A lot of fiction that deals with consciousness copies finds that copies are far more willing to "die" knowing that another instance of the pattern will live on. Ultimately our desire for self-preservation itself only comes from our evolutionary history. That desire itself is mutable, and you could expect that the portion of it that cares about being the original would slowly evolve away if transporter use were a significant component of the fitness function.

gnaritas 9y ago
It's fiction, it doesn't find anything, it asserts. There's no rational reason at all to think a copy would be more willing to die. We have copies in the real word, twins, and being a twin doesn't make the other have less of a survival instinct.
- Smaug123 9y ago
  Twins are very low-fidelity copies of each other. They may have been diverging for decades. To use them as counterexamples is dubious at best. (Not disagreeing with your point, but your example is not really evidence in favour of it.) EDIT: actually, I think you may have provided weak evidence against your assertion. It's not wildly unusual for a family member to sacrifice themself to save other family members from death.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    Nor is it unusual for people to sacrifice themselves for communities, nations, or even ideologies. "Self" is not as narrow a concept as naive philosophies assert.
- usjehshksish 9y ago
  Twins are copies? You are stretching a bit, I think. I understand you feel strongly about this, but you're not going to convince anyone with weak arguments like this. But, thanks for helping make my intent clearer. There isn't frequently a situation in reality where a reduction in self preservation would be favored, even in the case of twins. Although I'd bet you would in fact find that twins express a moderately greater willingness to die for one another than other types of siblings.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    Twins are the closest thing to an exact copy that exist in the real world, that's not remotely stretching, it's trying to ground it reality to make the silliness of the fiction obvious. Like all analogies, it's flawed, try and see the point rather than pick on the flaw. Uh no I don't feel "strongly" about a conversation about identity vs equality of Star Trek transporters, you're projecting. And dying for the love of another isn't remotely the same thing as your original statement, you've moved the goal post.
    - Smaug123 9y ago
      The point is that the analogy actually shows the opposite of what you want it to show! Family members are very, very weak copies of each other, and they still sacrifice themselves to save other family members. Explicitly, we have weak evidence against "There's no rational reason at all to think a copy would be more willing to die", namely that the better the copy of you, the more likely you are to sacrifice yourself for them. (Would an average human be more willing to die for their third cousin twice removed, their aunt, or their father?) The evidence is weak, naturally, because nature doesn't contain anything even remotely like two exact copies of a person; all we can do is attempt to extrapolate from the obvious trend that "the closer the relation, the more willing I am to die for them", and the obvious extrapolation is "the closest possible relation - the exact copy - is the most likely candidate for me to sacrifice myself to save". By the way, the reason I downvoted your comment was because of the "you're projecting", which comes across as snarky and is not remotely implied by the parent comment.

gnaritas 9y ago

It's fiction, it doesn't find anything, it asserts. There's no rational reason at all to think a copy would be more willing to die. We have copies in the real word, twins, and being a twin doesn't make the other have less of a survival instinct.

Smaug123 9y ago
Twins are very low-fidelity copies of each other. They may have been diverging for decades. To use them as counterexamples is dubious at best. (Not disagreeing with your point, but your example is not really evidence in favour of it.) EDIT: actually, I think you may have provided weak evidence against your assertion. It's not wildly unusual for a family member to sacrifice themself to save other family members from death.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Nor is it unusual for people to sacrifice themselves for communities, nations, or even ideologies. "Self" is not as narrow a concept as naive philosophies assert.
usjehshksish 9y ago
Twins are copies? You are stretching a bit, I think. I understand you feel strongly about this, but you're not going to convince anyone with weak arguments like this. But, thanks for helping make my intent clearer. There isn't frequently a situation in reality where a reduction in self preservation would be favored, even in the case of twins. Although I'd bet you would in fact find that twins express a moderately greater willingness to die for one another than other types of siblings.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  Twins are the closest thing to an exact copy that exist in the real world, that's not remotely stretching, it's trying to ground it reality to make the silliness of the fiction obvious. Like all analogies, it's flawed, try and see the point rather than pick on the flaw. Uh no I don't feel "strongly" about a conversation about identity vs equality of Star Trek transporters, you're projecting. And dying for the love of another isn't remotely the same thing as your original statement, you've moved the goal post.
  - Smaug123 9y ago
    The point is that the analogy actually shows the opposite of what you want it to show! Family members are very, very weak copies of each other, and they still sacrifice themselves to save other family members. Explicitly, we have weak evidence against "There's no rational reason at all to think a copy would be more willing to die", namely that the better the copy of you, the more likely you are to sacrifice yourself for them. (Would an average human be more willing to die for their third cousin twice removed, their aunt, or their father?) The evidence is weak, naturally, because nature doesn't contain anything even remotely like two exact copies of a person; all we can do is attempt to extrapolate from the obvious trend that "the closer the relation, the more willing I am to die for them", and the obvious extrapolation is "the closest possible relation - the exact copy - is the most likely candidate for me to sacrifice myself to save". By the way, the reason I downvoted your comment was because of the "you're projecting", which comes across as snarky and is not remotely implied by the parent comment.