6 ms·

This is the part I'm always surprised people don't seem to get. If someone makes an exact copy of me, the original me is still going to think "I'm me. That oth

by gagege 9y ago

This is the part I'm always surprised people don't seem to get. If someone makes an exact copy of me, the original me is still going to think "I'm me. That other thing is a copy of me." So, if the original me has to die for the clone to be created... unless my consciousness somehow jumps to the clone, I experience a death which I do not come back from.

ajuc 9y ago
> unless my consciousness somehow jumps to the clone You don't have conciousness when you sleep (at least during some parts of it). Your conciousness disappears every night for several hours and is recreated every morning. Why is it not a problem, but when there is 2 of you - it suddenly becomes a problem? If you were sleeping while someone made a clone - would that make it OK? If no - why? There's no evidence of anything external that has to "jump".
- gagege 9y ago
  I disagree that I disappear during states of "unconsciousness". Sleep/general anesthesia/drugs are just different states of brain activity, but I'm still "me" during these states. We don't say people become no one, or someone else when they sleep. So, a copy of your consciousness (if such a thing is possible) is different than sleeping. No matter how much the clone believes it is me, it will never be me. I still die in my scenario, even though the other feels differently about it. To add to that, asking "who am I" is a philosophical question, and I'm not a strict empiricist, so I don't categorically dismiss the idea that there exists an "I" outside of my natural body.
  - ajuc 9y ago
    What about multiple personality disorder? Are there 2 of you time-sharing a body? I don't see how you can distinguish "different brain-states that are still me", and "different brain-states that are not me" other than by looking at the data in these brain-states. If the data is the same - what makes it ok to say "these 2 brainstates are the same person, and these 2 are not"? > We don't say people become no one, or someone else when they sleep. We say a lot of things that are wrong or simplified, it's not an argument anymore than the word "sunrise" is an argument for geocentrism. > I don't categorically dismiss the idea that there exists an "I" outside of my natural body. I agree that existence of souls would change things, but it's untestable and unnessesary to explain all phenomena we experience, so I consider it a waste of time to discuss these.
  - ccostes 9y ago
    I think the point about unconscious states was not that you "become no one", but rather that it is an interruption to the continuity of consciousness. As a thought experiment, imagine you were magically replicated during sleep such that, at the time of replication, both "you"s were completely physically identical. Both would wake up thinking that they are the same person that went to sleep, but now there are two of them. Are either/both/none of them "you"? My answer would be that they both are, and don't think there's anything special about our physical selves, nor any reason that we're limited to being singletons (to give a code analogy). The combination of our physical self and our cumulative experience and memories are what defines "us". Thinking of identity in possessive terms and the desire to think of ourselves as unique is a quirk of psychology, I think.
- Vadoff 9y ago
  So if someone said they'd shoot you in your sleep, but replace you with a clone with your memories and give that clone $100. You'd do it?
  - projektir 9y ago
    No, that's not even what they're saying. They're basically saying killing them in their sleep is not a problem. That's where that logic goes. Because you die when you go to sleep.
    - ajuc 9y ago
      As long as someone who is exactly like me with my memories and thought processes is created in the morning.
- projektir 9y ago
  I'm not sure, are you comfortable living one day only, and leaving all the problems to be for future you to take care of? Because for that logic, you basically don't exist that much at all, and the moment you go to sleep, the rest of your life is somebody else's problem, because you effectively die. That is what you're saying (and that is what people like us would expect from mind upload). So you tell me why it's a problem, but it seems, I may go to sleep all I want, but when I wake up the next day, all my problems are still my own. I doubt that if someone makes a clone of me, and I go to sleep, that I'm going to wake up as them and that other clone. How would that even work if there's two of us? There's only one of "me" to go around. Oh, it's very awkward, yes, because it implies there's something else going on here that is required to hold this information, but we're all supposed to think that's impossible...
  - ajuc 9y ago
    > all my problems are still my own. Or you can decide the leave everything and become a monk. I don't see how that's an argument one way or another. > There's only one of "me" to go around. Why? It seems to be the crux of your argument, but you don't justify it in any way.
    - projektir 9y ago
      > Or you can decide the leave everything and become a monk. I don't see how that's an argument one way or another. You seem to have missed what I said. I mean that, if I don't wash the dishes today, and I go to sleep, it's still me who's going to have to wash those dishes tomorrow. It's not someone else. It's me. That "me" is the question. I can't just not wake up as "me" tomorrow. If continuity wasn't a thing then the concept of "me" shouldn't exist at all, so there would be no responsible party in the first place, but every morning I find that I need to wake up, go to work, and then sometimes wash the dishes. Of course, the entire experience of "me" can be falsified by a 3rd party, sure, but the world itself could also be falsified, neither of these beliefs are particularly actionable. But "the person who didn't wash the dishes and the person who then suffers the consequences is a continual entity" is actionable, it means I should wash my dishes. > Why? It seems to be the crux of your argument, but you don't justify it in any way. Because I can't wake up and control two people at the same time. That doesn't even happen in the case of multiple personality disorder.

by gagege 9y ago

ajuc 9y ago

> unless my consciousness somehow jumps to the clone You don't have conciousness when you sleep (at least during some parts of it). Your conciousness disappears every night for several hours and is recreated every morning. Why is it not a problem, but when there is 2 of you - it suddenly becomes a problem? If you were sleeping while someone made a clone - would that make it OK? If no - why? There's no evidence of anything external that has to "jump".

gagege 9y ago
I disagree that I disappear during states of "unconsciousness". Sleep/general anesthesia/drugs are just different states of brain activity, but I'm still "me" during these states. We don't say people become no one, or someone else when they sleep. So, a copy of your consciousness (if such a thing is possible) is different than sleeping. No matter how much the clone believes it is me, it will never be me. I still die in my scenario, even though the other feels differently about it. To add to that, asking "who am I" is a philosophical question, and I'm not a strict empiricist, so I don't categorically dismiss the idea that there exists an "I" outside of my natural body.
- ajuc 9y ago
  What about multiple personality disorder? Are there 2 of you time-sharing a body? I don't see how you can distinguish "different brain-states that are still me", and "different brain-states that are not me" other than by looking at the data in these brain-states. If the data is the same - what makes it ok to say "these 2 brainstates are the same person, and these 2 are not"? > We don't say people become no one, or someone else when they sleep. We say a lot of things that are wrong or simplified, it's not an argument anymore than the word "sunrise" is an argument for geocentrism. > I don't categorically dismiss the idea that there exists an "I" outside of my natural body. I agree that existence of souls would change things, but it's untestable and unnessesary to explain all phenomena we experience, so I consider it a waste of time to discuss these.
- ccostes 9y ago
  I think the point about unconscious states was not that you "become no one", but rather that it is an interruption to the continuity of consciousness. As a thought experiment, imagine you were magically replicated during sleep such that, at the time of replication, both "you"s were completely physically identical. Both would wake up thinking that they are the same person that went to sleep, but now there are two of them. Are either/both/none of them "you"? My answer would be that they both are, and don't think there's anything special about our physical selves, nor any reason that we're limited to being singletons (to give a code analogy). The combination of our physical self and our cumulative experience and memories are what defines "us". Thinking of identity in possessive terms and the desire to think of ourselves as unique is a quirk of psychology, I think.
Vadoff 9y ago
So if someone said they'd shoot you in your sleep, but replace you with a clone with your memories and give that clone $100. You'd do it?
- projektir 9y ago
  No, that's not even what they're saying. They're basically saying killing them in their sleep is not a problem. That's where that logic goes. Because you die when you go to sleep.
  - ajuc 9y ago
    As long as someone who is exactly like me with my memories and thought processes is created in the morning.
projektir 9y ago
I'm not sure, are you comfortable living one day only, and leaving all the problems to be for future you to take care of? Because for that logic, you basically don't exist that much at all, and the moment you go to sleep, the rest of your life is somebody else's problem, because you effectively die. That is what you're saying (and that is what people like us would expect from mind upload). So you tell me why it's a problem, but it seems, I may go to sleep all I want, but when I wake up the next day, all my problems are still my own. I doubt that if someone makes a clone of me, and I go to sleep, that I'm going to wake up as them and that other clone. How would that even work if there's two of us? There's only one of "me" to go around. Oh, it's very awkward, yes, because it implies there's something else going on here that is required to hold this information, but we're all supposed to think that's impossible...
- ajuc 9y ago
  > all my problems are still my own. Or you can decide the leave everything and become a monk. I don't see how that's an argument one way or another. > There's only one of "me" to go around. Why? It seems to be the crux of your argument, but you don't justify it in any way.
  - projektir 9y ago
    > Or you can decide the leave everything and become a monk. I don't see how that's an argument one way or another. You seem to have missed what I said. I mean that, if I don't wash the dishes today, and I go to sleep, it's still me who's going to have to wash those dishes tomorrow. It's not someone else. It's me. That "me" is the question. I can't just not wake up as "me" tomorrow. If continuity wasn't a thing then the concept of "me" shouldn't exist at all, so there would be no responsible party in the first place, but every morning I find that I need to wake up, go to work, and then sometimes wash the dishes. Of course, the entire experience of "me" can be falsified by a 3rd party, sure, but the world itself could also be falsified, neither of these beliefs are particularly actionable. But "the person who didn't wash the dishes and the person who then suffers the consequences is a continual entity" is actionable, it means I should wash my dishes. > Why? It seems to be the crux of your argument, but you don't justify it in any way. Because I can't wake up and control two people at the same time. That doesn't even happen in the case of multiple personality disorder.