4 ms·

>Why do people think that version is "you". Or rather "me" Why do you think the consciousness that wakes in your body is the one that fell asleep the night bef

by knome 2y ago

>Why do people think that version is "you". Or rather "me" Why do you think the consciousness that wakes in your body is the one that fell asleep the night before? Because it can access the same memories and is stuck in the same tube of meat? >Though I'm pretty sure if it's an accurate representation of me it wouldn't want to exist as just a tool https://qntm.org/mmacevedo https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

godelski 2y ago
Either answer to that question does not make mine any less true. But still, that question isn't relevant. There's a continuous process. If you want to make the ship of Theseus, sure. But an upload or clone is certainly distinct.
maxbond 2y ago
I'm aware of no process by which I would have been destroyed and recreated in my sleep, and I actually take my memories and meat tube to be rather strong evidence, so I take the simpler assumption that I persisted. If I receive evidence to the contrary, I'll reevaluate. In this scenario, we've already posited that I've been destroyed and recreated. So I don't think these are comparable.
- godelski 2y ago
  > In this scenario, we've already posited that I've been destroyed and recreated. So I don't think these are comparable. Thank you. I do not understand why people cannot distinguish this critical factor. There are other critical factors that need to be considered in these discussions : - Can multiple entities exist simultaneously? (maybe not in an example, but under the conditions of a scenario) - Does destruction occur? How do we define destruction? - Are we teenagers smoking weed commenting on HN or have we read philosophy, understand the No Cloning Theorem[0], continuity, formal logic[1], and other such things? > I'm aware of no process by which I would have been destroyed and recreated in my sleep Again, thank you. I think people forget how proofs work. Maybe because the confusion between "the absence of proof is not proof of absence" and "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? I know that the Von Neuman's Elephant[2] is well known, but it appears that the reasoning for it is not so much (as well as a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor). Since it is actually about how experimental or empirical evidence for things is weak and far from proof of such processes (though it is not lack of evidence either). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem [1] https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Methodology-Deductive-Mathematics/dp/048628462X https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Methodology-Deduct... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%27s_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%27s_elephant

by knome 2y ago

godelski 2y ago

Either answer to that question does not make mine any less true. But still, that question isn't relevant. There's a continuous process. If you want to make the ship of Theseus, sure. But an upload or clone is certainly distinct.

maxbond 2y ago

I'm aware of no process by which I would have been destroyed and recreated in my sleep, and I actually take my memories and meat tube to be rather strong evidence, so I take the simpler assumption that I persisted. If I receive evidence to the contrary, I'll reevaluate. In this scenario, we've already posited that I've been destroyed and recreated. So I don't think these are comparable.

godelski 2y ago
> In this scenario, we've already posited that I've been destroyed and recreated. So I don't think these are comparable. Thank you. I do not understand why people cannot distinguish this critical factor. There are other critical factors that need to be considered in these discussions : - Can multiple entities exist simultaneously? (maybe not in an example, but under the conditions of a scenario) - Does destruction occur? How do we define destruction? - Are we teenagers smoking weed commenting on HN or have we read philosophy, understand the No Cloning Theorem[0], continuity, formal logic[1], and other such things? > I'm aware of no process by which I would have been destroyed and recreated in my sleep Again, thank you. I think people forget how proofs work. Maybe because the confusion between "the absence of proof is not proof of absence" and "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? I know that the Von Neuman's Elephant[2] is well known, but it appears that the reasoning for it is not so much (as well as a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor). Since it is actually about how experimental or empirical evidence for things is weak and far from proof of such processes (though it is not lack of evidence either). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem [1] https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Methodology-Deductive-Mathematics/dp/048628462X https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Methodology-Deduct... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%27s_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%27s_elephant