4 ms·

I don't think I'm missing the point as such, it's rather that my position is just sufficiently aggravating it looks from your perspective as if I didn't see yo

by Udo 13y ago

I don't think I'm missing the point as such, it's rather that my position is just sufficiently aggravating it looks from your perspective as if I didn't see your core problem. I'm painfully aware of the point you are trying to make, and no, I still don't agree with the premise behind it. Death is two things: your mind stops being executed, and the information making up your mind is being destroyed. Neither of these things happens to an uploaded person if the upload is sufficiently recent. If you make a copy of yourself, they're both you. If you make a working copy of a dead person, that means there is still a you after the whole thing. People wonder about strange things like continuity of consciousness, which does not exist to begin with, but it's always invoked nevertheless. How will it feel to be duplicated? And the hidden assumption is that by describing the proposed weirdness of the feeling it will somehow contradict and disprove the feasibility of the whole concept. What it feels like to be duplicated will very much depend on the external circumstances at that time. If you get run over by a bus and wake up in a piece of silicon, that's how it will be. If you step into a matter replicator or a non-destructive scanner, you'll suddenly look at another instance of yourself. Twice. None of these things are spacetime-shattering paradoxons. The notion of an "original" and a "copy" is not even applicable if the copy isn't degraded somehow. - In closing I think I made a serious mistake during this whole discussion. Instead of challenging people to justify why they believe "a copy of you isn't you", I made the error of trying to explain why I think this is wrong - as opposed to you guys having to explain why you believe this is right. I just realized that nothing I wrote here today was actually accessible or useful to anyone and I'm actually turning into losethos as I realize that I'm producing content that makes no sense to anyone. ;)

javert 13y ago
No, your argument is not what is aggravating. Don't assume someone disagrees with you just because your argument is aggravating. What is aggravating is that you claim to be getting the point, but you're not. > Death is two things: your mind stops being executed, and the information making up your mind is being destroyed. Neither of these things happens to an uploaded person if the upload is sufficiently recent. This is an improper reduction. If you want to extend the computer analogy: If I die, a particular instance of my mind's execution goes away forever. You may argue that that doesn't matter for some reason (perhaps by analogy to going to sleep and then waking up, as I do every day), but you have to first accept the that it is a fact. Your account pretends that it isn't a fact. For example: > The notion of an "original" and a "copy" is not even applicable if the copy isn't degraded somehow. This ignores the fact that a copy is a different instance.

by Udo 13y ago

javert 13y ago

No, your argument is not what is aggravating. Don't assume someone disagrees with you just because your argument is aggravating. What is aggravating is that you claim to be getting the point, but you're not. > Death is two things: your mind stops being executed, and the information making up your mind is being destroyed. Neither of these things happens to an uploaded person if the upload is sufficiently recent. This is an improper reduction. If you want to extend the computer analogy: If I die, a particular instance of my mind's execution goes away forever. You may argue that that doesn't matter for some reason (perhaps by analogy to going to sleep and then waking up, as I do every day), but you have to first accept the that it is a fact. Your account pretends that it isn't a fact. For example: > The notion of an "original" and a "copy" is not even applicable if the copy isn't degraded somehow. This ignores the fact that a copy is a different instance.