3 ms·

You'll need to be more clear in your last sentence. If you are cloned while you are sleeping, and both the original and the copy are moved into different rooms

by gowld 2y ago

You'll need to be more clear in your last sentence. If you are cloned while you are sleeping, and both the original and the copy are moved into different rooms before you wake up, both of you think themself is you, and both of you think the other is not you. So, who is correct?

imron 2y ago
> So, who is correct? The one that wasn’t the clone.
nkrisc 2y ago
It makes no difference. If it’s possible for the two versions to meet (they exist simultaneously) then what you’re describing is simple deceit. A world where two of me exist is fundamentally and irreconcilably different than a world where I simply go to bed and wake up each day. It makes no difference if I personally am aware.
- exe34 2y ago
  it's almost as if your thought patterns and language are a product of your experience of being the only copy of you... if having copies of you walking around was a normal thing, our language and expectations would reflect that. right now if another copy of you comes by and claims your wife and your house, you'd be miffed. but the whole concept of one of you owning the house is just an artefact of how individuality and possessions happen to be right now. it doesn't have to be forever. there was a time you could steal a picture and have the only copy - now you can save a copy on your phone and you don't deprive another of theirs. some day people and stuff could behave the same.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Hopefully IP and copyright laws will evolve in parallel to prevent or highly penalize stuff like that.
    - exe34 2y ago
      I imagine the poor will want their mind state covered by copyright/intellectual property laws, and the rich will ignore that if it can help them amass more wealth - just like LLM and diffusion model training was bootstrapped off the back of creatives without payment. i.e. the law doesn't apply if you're rich enough.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > just like LLM and diffusion model training was bootstrapped off the back of creatives without payment. i.e. the law doesn't apply if you're rich enough. Or search engines. I don't know how the legal cases will go, all I can say is that my suspicion is that, like search, such AI are simply too useful to be outlawed… but my armchair opinions are almost as far as possible from a guarantee, and even search had to change in response to copyright infringement laws.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    None of that is related to my point. A world where I get cloned and an unaware is distinctly divergent from a world where there is only one of me each time I wake up, regardless of how society handles it.
    - exe34 2y ago
      yes, a world where there are two of you is different from a world where there's one of you. I feel like this is something Aristotle must have covered, but it is important to point it out!
      - nkrisc 2y ago
        Based on this entire thread it did seem necessary to state.
        exe34 2y ago
        Clearly, otherwise you would not have stated it.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >if having copies of you walking around was a normal thing, our language and expectations would reflect that. Yes, and if the law of excluded middle didn't hold, then all kind of magical things would happen too. But it does, and they don't.
ben_w 2y ago
For me, the relationship is non-transitive. If you tell me this will happen tonight, I would right now call both "me". Both of them after the event would agree that I am them. Both of them would agree they are different people to each other, even if they say so in perfect stereo unison.
- dag11 2y ago
  This entire thread just has me wanting to watch The Prestige one more time.
- sameerds 2y ago
  Cue the "We are Bob" series, aka Bobiverse, by Dennis E. Taylor!
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Was thinking more like John Crichton on Farscape, as Bob's copies diverge substantially and immediately, whereas John and his duplicate spend hours repeatedly drawing at rock paper scissors.
Taters91 2y ago
Irrelevant, cloning doesn't and probably never will, happen.
DanHulton 2y ago
You're assuming that there exists such a cloning process, and in doing so, silently ascribing properties to that process that completely change the outcome. You're in effect saying "Assume there is a cloning process that is instant and creates a complete copy of you, both mentally and physically," and sure, in that theoretical world, you can talk about there being no way to know which was you, the clone or the original. But IRL, we have no way of knowing what the properties of such a cloning process would be - maybe it's impossible to create a cloning process such that mentally, it is a complete copy. Maybe you can always tell whether you're the original or the clone. Similarly, maybe we simply cannot create a digital copy of a mind that cannot immediately tell it is the copy. We have literally no way of knowing. So instead of living in the philosphical realm, we can have a lot more productive conversation in the practical one. Practically, it strongly appears to me that I have continuity every time I wake up, and practically, if you copied my mind and ran it on a computer, that mind would not be the "me" that appears to experience continuity. Practically, it would bring me no comfort to know that this other mind that used to be a copy of my own continues onwards while I die, no more so than it would bring me comfort to know a twin of mine continues onwards.
snickerbockers 2y ago
from my own perspective it would be impossible to tell given the parameters of this thought experiment, but any outside observer who witnessed the cloning process and the staging of the second bedroom would know. Moreover, if randomly one of the two dies and the other survives then either the original or the clone experiences death. So from the point of view of the original before the experiment, he has a 50% chance of dying. If we change the experiment to say that he has a 100% chance of dying but the clone has a 100% chance of surviving, the original would not agree to the experiment unless he was suicidal; obviously he has no reason to care that a different person will live on assuming his identity after he dies.
coldtea 2y ago
>If you are cloned while you are sleeping, and both the original and the copy are moved into different rooms before you wake up, both of you think themself is you, and both of you think the other is not you. So, who is correct? Obviously the original one is. Whether the clone also things that it's me doesn't make it any more so, than if a paranoid person thought it was Napoleon would make them Napoleon.
- rclairville 2y ago
  Yes, but we're suggesting a clean mental break in some senses from your cognitions POV. Both of you would be the real you, except to each other. The Hermetic tradition has some texts that delve into how God cannot be contained within the universe because he exists outside of it. In some senses, it would be downright insane to ponder the ramifications of this. After the first 'Clone Settlement' and the pains of splitting someone's belongings between the same person; it would have to be made illegal. No other way around it.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Which one is the original? Say we aren't making a computer copy but duplicate of your body. And we might have messed up the labels. How do you tell which one is the original? Atoms don't have labels. But atom-level copy isn't possible. Say we made the scan at large enough scale that has fidelity but it isn't identical.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >Which one is the original? Say we aren't making a computer copy but duplicate of your body. And we might have messed up the labels. Reality doesn't care about the labels. One of the two pre-existed, which is the original. >How do you tell which one is the original? Atoms don't have labels. That's a problem regarding our knowledge. There's still an original, regardless if we know which or not. There's an original even regardless whether the original has a way to prove to themselves they are so (as opposed to simply believing they are, which the clone would believe too).

by gowld 2y ago

imron 2y ago

> So, who is correct? The one that wasn’t the clone.

nkrisc 2y ago

It makes no difference. If it’s possible for the two versions to meet (they exist simultaneously) then what you’re describing is simple deceit. A world where two of me exist is fundamentally and irreconcilably different than a world where I simply go to bed and wake up each day. It makes no difference if I personally am aware.

exe34 2y ago
it's almost as if your thought patterns and language are a product of your experience of being the only copy of you... if having copies of you walking around was a normal thing, our language and expectations would reflect that. right now if another copy of you comes by and claims your wife and your house, you'd be miffed. but the whole concept of one of you owning the house is just an artefact of how individuality and possessions happen to be right now. it doesn't have to be forever. there was a time you could steal a picture and have the only copy - now you can save a copy on your phone and you don't deprive another of theirs. some day people and stuff could behave the same.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Hopefully IP and copyright laws will evolve in parallel to prevent or highly penalize stuff like that.
  - exe34 2y ago
    I imagine the poor will want their mind state covered by copyright/intellectual property laws, and the rich will ignore that if it can help them amass more wealth - just like LLM and diffusion model training was bootstrapped off the back of creatives without payment. i.e. the law doesn't apply if you're rich enough.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > just like LLM and diffusion model training was bootstrapped off the back of creatives without payment. i.e. the law doesn't apply if you're rich enough. Or search engines. I don't know how the legal cases will go, all I can say is that my suspicion is that, like search, such AI are simply too useful to be outlawed… but my armchair opinions are almost as far as possible from a guarantee, and even search had to change in response to copyright infringement laws.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  None of that is related to my point. A world where I get cloned and an unaware is distinctly divergent from a world where there is only one of me each time I wake up, regardless of how society handles it.
  - exe34 2y ago
    yes, a world where there are two of you is different from a world where there's one of you. I feel like this is something Aristotle must have covered, but it is important to point it out!
    - nkrisc 2y ago
      Based on this entire thread it did seem necessary to state.
      - exe34 2y ago
        Clearly, otherwise you would not have stated it.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >if having copies of you walking around was a normal thing, our language and expectations would reflect that. Yes, and if the law of excluded middle didn't hold, then all kind of magical things would happen too. But it does, and they don't.

ben_w 2y ago

For me, the relationship is non-transitive. If you tell me this will happen tonight, I would right now call both "me". Both of them after the event would agree that I am them. Both of them would agree they are different people to each other, even if they say so in perfect stereo unison.

dag11 2y ago
This entire thread just has me wanting to watch The Prestige one more time.
sameerds 2y ago
Cue the "We are Bob" series, aka Bobiverse, by Dennis E. Taylor!
- ben_w 2y ago
  Was thinking more like John Crichton on Farscape, as Bob's copies diverge substantially and immediately, whereas John and his duplicate spend hours repeatedly drawing at rock paper scissors.

Taters91 2y ago

Irrelevant, cloning doesn't and probably never will, happen.

DanHulton 2y ago

You're assuming that there exists such a cloning process, and in doing so, silently ascribing properties to that process that completely change the outcome. You're in effect saying "Assume there is a cloning process that is instant and creates a complete copy of you, both mentally and physically," and sure, in that theoretical world, you can talk about there being no way to know which was you, the clone or the original. But IRL, we have no way of knowing what the properties of such a cloning process would be - maybe it's impossible to create a cloning process such that mentally, it is a complete copy. Maybe you can always tell whether you're the original or the clone. Similarly, maybe we simply cannot create a digital copy of a mind that cannot immediately tell it is the copy. We have literally no way of knowing. So instead of living in the philosphical realm, we can have a lot more productive conversation in the practical one. Practically, it strongly appears to me that I have continuity every time I wake up, and practically, if you copied my mind and ran it on a computer, that mind would not be the "me" that appears to experience continuity. Practically, it would bring me no comfort to know that this other mind that used to be a copy of my own continues onwards while I die, no more so than it would bring me comfort to know a twin of mine continues onwards.

snickerbockers 2y ago

from my own perspective it would be impossible to tell given the parameters of this thought experiment, but any outside observer who witnessed the cloning process and the staging of the second bedroom would know. Moreover, if randomly one of the two dies and the other survives then either the original or the clone experiences death. So from the point of view of the original before the experiment, he has a 50% chance of dying. If we change the experiment to say that he has a 100% chance of dying but the clone has a 100% chance of surviving, the original would not agree to the experiment unless he was suicidal; obviously he has no reason to care that a different person will live on assuming his identity after he dies.

coldtea 2y ago

>If you are cloned while you are sleeping, and both the original and the copy are moved into different rooms before you wake up, both of you think themself is you, and both of you think the other is not you. So, who is correct? Obviously the original one is. Whether the clone also things that it's me doesn't make it any more so, than if a paranoid person thought it was Napoleon would make them Napoleon.

rclairville 2y ago
Yes, but we're suggesting a clean mental break in some senses from your cognitions POV. Both of you would be the real you, except to each other. The Hermetic tradition has some texts that delve into how God cannot be contained within the universe because he exists outside of it. In some senses, it would be downright insane to ponder the ramifications of this. After the first 'Clone Settlement' and the pains of splitting someone's belongings between the same person; it would have to be made illegal. No other way around it.
ianburrell 2y ago
Which one is the original? Say we aren't making a computer copy but duplicate of your body. And we might have messed up the labels. How do you tell which one is the original? Atoms don't have labels. But atom-level copy isn't possible. Say we made the scan at large enough scale that has fidelity but it isn't identical.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >Which one is the original? Say we aren't making a computer copy but duplicate of your body. And we might have messed up the labels. Reality doesn't care about the labels. One of the two pre-existed, which is the original. >How do you tell which one is the original? Atoms don't have labels. That's a problem regarding our knowledge. There's still an original, regardless if we know which or not. There's an original even regardless whether the original has a way to prove to themselves they are so (as opposed to simply believing they are, which the clone would believe too).