5 ms·
It's a bit more complicated. The human body is not simply a CPU and memory executing dumb instructions (well it KIND of is at some level), it's impacted HUGELY
by aneutron 5y ago
It's a bit more complicated. The human body is not simply a CPU and memory executing dumb instructions (well it KIND of is at some level), it's impacted HUGELY by environmental variables. Suppose you're from the 1700s and your clone behaves badly in his diet (fast food is helluva drug), develops hypertension, some form of brain cancer and starts hallucinating. It's most definitely the same you. Because in the 18th century there were no fast-food chains in the 1700s.
My main point is it's not as cut and dry. Yes the body is essentially a machine "executing" your consciousness. But that consciousness is self-modifying, and modified by the environment.
- nautilius 5y agoWell of course once they start interacting with the environment they will become 'different people' - surely you don't think I think twins are essentially only a single person. How is that a paradox that people develop differently when making different experiences? The question is what happens at t=t0?
- TeMPOraL 5y agoThe important question is: if the transporter works as originally designed - dematerializing you in the process - is this just moving you, or is it killing you? The option of modifying it to not dematerialize you, but copy you, is how this question stops being tautological. Imagine there's a "copy/move" mode switch. Is the act of switching it to "move" a decision to murder the "input you" (or commit suicide, if you're operating the device yourself)? EDIT: Downstream from that come the legal questions like, does the person leaving the transporter at the destination have rights to your identity, accounts, assets? Are they married to your spouse? Does this depend on whether the switch on transporter was on "move" or "copy" position? If so, why? And how does this square with ethics?
- nautilius 5y agoNo, that switch, even if it's only hypothetical, completely resolves the paradox, as I discuss above. You destroy your body, you die. Someone else does it for you - they murder you. There is no paradox. Sure, it may give a a warm fuzzy feeling that someone else with your background will continue to live, taking your memories with them, but you press the button and your light goes out.
- RobertoG 5y agoif there is a exact working copy of you, then you don't "stop existing". What does that even mean? Do you die every night when you go to sleep?
- nautilius 5y agoWell, I'd maintain that your memories 'live' on, but you're no longer there to enjoy them, that's someone else. If that's enough for you, great for you. I personally enjoy having experiences myself. > What does that even mean? What does what even mean? To stop existing? Is that a serious question?
- RobertoG 5y agoyou can not define what is that 'you' that is not there to enjoy, so, how do you know that it didn't transfer too? is a faith thing?
- nautilius 5y agoUltimately, “I think therefore I am”, so I know what “I” am.
- RobertoG 5y agobut that copy of you would think too, so, what's the difference?
- nautilius 5y agoYou think so, too, does that mean we are the same person? I don't think so. The same holds for the copy.
- RobertoG 5y agoBut we are the same on that, that's what "same" means. We are not the same person, because we are different in some other characteristics and in our circumstances. What's the reason you and your copy are not the same?
- RobertoG 5y agoI don't see any problem. I have a file in my computer, I send it to your computer, I can delete it from my computer or not. The legal status of the file will have to be decided by society for solving practical problems.