• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Artificial Intelligence and Life Beyond Death

A good many here are atheists* - non God believers, and the spin off from that usually is a lack of belief in spiritual life, or the existence of souls.

Given the above we must conclude that our sense of "I Am" or self awareness results from our material being. Is it possible we may be able to transfer this sense of "I Am" to another material receptacle? This could be another being or perhaps a computer.


* The smart ones that is. :D
Quite probably. When is another matter.
 
Can we try another one?

Congratulations! You've already been cloned! Since your clone was just created, he has a different legal name and social security number. Otherwise, absolutely identical at the time of the copy with all memories etc.

Because your clone was just created, it has no possessions, no money, nothing.

I'm not sure if you personally have money or debt, but for the sake of the experiment, imagine you have a modest amount of money in the bank. A life savings.

Now if there is no difference between the you you are experiencing and the cloned you that you have never seen, no meaning to distinguishing between them, then transferring your life savings to your clone would be a lateral move right? Right now there are two you's, one with money, one without. Switching which instance of you has money makes no difference, so you should have no objection to sending all of your money to the other cory, right?

Imagine, fo the sake of the experiment, that you can never meet this copy, share resources or money in other ways etc etc.

Do you have zero preference between keeping all of your money or giving it to the other you?

I'm sure I would feel some degree of obligation, just like you do with any close relative. Doesn't mean I would share everything with them, just like I wouldn't if a previously unknown identical twin would show up.


But these cases are purely thought experiments; cloning someone will never be a trivial thing, and pure Quantum Mechanics dictate that there will always be measurable difference even in the most perfect of clones.
If someone sets out to create a clone, they have a purpose for them:
after all, it is quite a common thing with race horses nowadays.
 
Can we try another one?

Congratulations! You've already been cloned! Since your clone was just created, he has a different legal name and social security number. Otherwise, absolutely identical at the time of the copy with all memories etc.

Because your clone was just created, it has no possessions, no money, nothing.

I'm not sure if you personally have money or debt, but for the sake of the experiment, imagine you have a modest amount of money in the bank. A life savings.

Now if there is no difference between the you you are experiencing and the cloned you that you have never seen, no meaning to distinguishing between them, then transferring your life savings to your clone would be a lateral move right? Right now there are two you's, one with money, one without. Switching which instance of you has money makes no difference, so you should have no objection to sending all of your money to the other cory, right?

Imagine, fo the sake of the experiment, that you can never meet this copy, share resources or money in other ways etc etc.

Do you have zero preference between keeping all of your money or giving it to the other you?

If I woke up as a destitute clone of ThePrestige, I wouldn't consider myself entitled to ThePrestige's wealth. I'd consider myself entitled to a piece of the cloning agency's wealth. I'd find a good lawyer, and launch civil suits galore, until my de facto "parents" accepted and discharged their moral and legal responsibilities for bringing me into the world.
 
Let me expand on the "identical clone shows up" question:

much more interesting is what the clone would think: as far as he is concerned, I've stolen his life. He probably wouldn't take that very well.
 
I'm sure I would feel some degree of obligation, just like you do with any close relative. Doesn't mean I would share everything with them, just like I wouldn't if a previously unknown identical twin would show up.

.

But that means there is a difference between the you you're currently experiencing and a perfect copy. If there were no difference, then transferring your bank account would be a lateral move.


Before
Zaganza A: $10,000 (or whatever you have)
Zaganza B: $0

After
Zaganza A: $0
Zaganza B: $10,000

You're ok with killing A as long as B survives, but not making this bank transfer? Why?

What if we added a bonus, the million dollars we talked about before?
Would you transfer all of your money if Zaganza B got it rounded up to an even million dollars?

Before
Zaganza A: $10,000
Zaganza B: $0

After
Zaganza A: $0
Zaganza B: $1,000,000


Earlier you were okay with an outcome almost exactly like this, except Zaganza A would be killed. Is it worse to be broke than dead? Or do you want to rethink your earlier view?
 
Let me expand on the "identical clone shows up" question:

much more interesting is what the clone would think: as far as he is concerned, I've stolen his life. He probably wouldn't take that very well.

Why would a clone of you, sharing your memories and opinions, think of it any differently than you yourself do?

Aside from the interesting sidebar about the nature of subjective identity, how is this any different from any other person who is born into this world without their consent, and depending on the goodwill of their parents to establish them in life?

I don't think that Uncle Prestige (my namesake) stole my life just because he was born first, and got a job, and earned some money, and built a life for himself instead of giving it all over to me.
 
But that means there is a difference between the you you're currently experiencing and a perfect copy. If there were no difference, then transferring your bank account would be a lateral move.


Before
Zaganza A: $10,000 (or whatever you have)
Zaganza B: $0

After
Zaganza A: $0
Zaganza B: $10,000

You're ok with killing A as long as B survives, but not making this bank transfer? Why?

What if we added a bonus, the million dollars we talked about before?
Would you transfer all of your money if Zaganza B got it rounded up to an even million dollars?

Before
Zaganza A: $10,000
Zaganza B: $0

After
Zaganza A: $0
Zaganza B: $1,000,000


Earlier you were okay with an outcome almost exactly like this, except Zaganza A would be killed. Is it worse to be broke than dead? Or do you want to rethink your earlier view?

you got this completely wrong.
We are both individuals who happen to be identical in every way. We are not part of a hivemind or borg organism: what I give away I lose - I don't gain what my copy gains. We don't share a soul.
ThePrestige is right that the Cloning Company needs to make the clone whole, meaning giving him everything I got, including a cloned family.
 
Why would a clone of you, sharing your memories and opinions, think of it any differently than you yourself do?

Aside from the interesting sidebar about the nature of subjective identity, how is this any different from any other person who is born into this world without their consent, and depending on the goodwill of their parents to establish them in life?

I don't think that Uncle Prestige (my namesake) stole my life just because he was born first, and got a job, and earned some money, and built a life for himself instead of giving it all over to me.

Look, the question of who gets the wealth and family depends on who gets home first from the cloning facility - see that Schwarzenegger movie I forgot the name of. That might be me or my clone - the slower one would be in a different set of circumstances, because he would find his spot in life already occupied, and hence think differently about it.
 
you got this completely wrong.
We are both individuals who happen to be identical in every way. We are not part of a hivemind or borg organism: what I give away I lose - I don't gain what my copy gains. We don't share a soul.
ThePrestige is right that the Cloning Company needs to make the clone whole, meaning giving him everything I got, including a cloned family.

Then I'm confused about your answer in post #97.
 
Then I'm confused about your answer in post #97.

the clone is me, because in identical circumstance, he would act and think like me.
the only difference is that there are two, which means there will be divergence immediately, but who would be considered "the original" would be up to the environment, not the two mes.
 
the clone is me, because in identical circumstance, he would act and think like me.
the only difference is that there are two, which means there will be divergence immediately, but who would be considered "the original" would be up to the environment, not the two mes.

For the sake of clarity, let's call the body that previously existed "the original".

Just to sum up your positions:

1) Make a copy, give the copy $1 million, kill the original: Good!
2) Make a copy, give the copy all of your money: Bad
3) Make a copy, give the copy $1 million, leave the original broke: Bad

Where I'm unclear is how you can hold both view #1 and view #3
 
the clone is me, because in identical circumstance, he would act and think like me.
the only difference is that there are two, which means there will be divergence immediately, but who would be considered "the original" would be up to the environment, not the two mes.

No. If you are cloned then you and the clone have different worldlines. Regardless of what either of you think of yourselves or remember, you are not the same objects travelling through spacetime. One of you was there earlier in time and travelled a lot more space.
 
No. If you are cloned then you and the clone have different worldlines. Regardless of what either of you think of yourselves or remember, you are not the same objects travelling through spacetime. One of you was there earlier in time and travelled a lot more space.

Not if we were kept in a coma until we were both ready.
But even in your case, the question would be what the rest of the world thinks, not what t or other-I thinks.
 
For the sake of clarity, let's call the body that previously existed "the original".

Just to sum up your positions:

1) Make a copy, give the copy $1 million, kill the original: Good!
2) Make a copy, give the copy all of your money: Bad
3) Make a copy, give the copy $1 million, leave the original broke: Bad

Where I'm unclear is how you can hold both view #1 and view #3

What options do you present to the clone?

See the difference isn't the clone it's how you treat original vs. clone.
 
Not if we were kept in a coma until we were both ready.
But even in your case, the question would be what the rest of the world thinks, not what t or other-I thinks.

Being in a coma won't grant two separate sets of molecules the same position in spacetime. Opinions do not matter in physics, how you or anyone thinks about a given object won't retroactively change its past history.
 
Of course I would - they would have just killed my identical twin!
What a waste! Why make a copy if you don't want to have two instead of one?

But the point is that the copy would be me, just like the original.


That's what I've concluded too.

The crisis moment is stepping into the teletransporter. Which can be extrapolated to emphasize the crisis by positing it as a two step process. "Okay, the scan is finished and your duplicate has been created at your destination. Now step into the disintegrator to complete the protocol." Yikes! That's scary!

The aversion is instinctive, and like all of the very strongest instincts, it relates directly to the reason our mental selves exist in the first place. That reason, according to evolutionary biology, is to enable our physical selves to successfully negotiate the world and thereby remain in existence. (If p-zombies could have accomplished that instead, then p-zombies are what would have evolved.) If there were Asimov's Rules of Animalics, Rule 1 would be "don't step into the disintegrator, you idiot!" Because we evolved in a world with cliffs, floods, fires, lava, predators, enemies, and (assuming cartoons are a generally accurate depiction of the paleolithic world) gigantic stew pots everywhere, but no teletransporters.

At the same time, we're normally pretty cavalier about interrupting the continuity of our mental selves. Not only do we go to sleep, we can also get "caught up" in a reverie or the flow of a task, to "come back to ourselves" later. Rituals, mental disciplines, privations, and drugs are also widely used to interfere with ordinary conscious experience. We're confident that unless there's physical damage our mental selves will resume, and we don't fret about whether we're really the same conscious awareness we were yesterday.

But in the end, there are only two adequate models of how our mental selves actually happen. It's either magic, or we're instances of a process, the functioning of our nervous systems, that the body starts and restarts as needed. And if it's the latter, and there are exact duplicate bodies in the scenario, it doesn't actually matter which duplicate body it restarts in next.

Yet, there on the threshold of the teletransporter, there at the crisis, everything seems reversed. We know the machine will preserve our physical existence by creating a duplicate body, but it's our mental existence we're suddenly in doubt of, when we complain, "but this me will die!" It's scary, but it's no more real than a projected ghost in a spook-house.
 
Being in a coma won't grant two separate sets of molecules the same position in spacetime. Opinions do not matter in physics, how you or anyone thinks about a given object won't retroactively change its past history.

No unaided human will be able to tell the difference, and neither would the two versions.
It is just a question of who the doctor says is more "original" - not who has more timeline privilege.
 
No unaided human will be able to tell the difference, and neither would the two versions.
It is just a question of who the doctor says is more "original" - not who has more timeline privilege.

It doesn't matter whether anyone can tell the difference or not. Reality doesn't change based on what people think about it, unless they are magical wizards. Just because you can't tell the difference between an actual Caravaggio and a reproduction doesn't mean the man sat there painting on two easels at once.
 
It doesn't matter whether anyone can tell the difference or not. Reality doesn't change based on what people think about it, unless they are magical wizards. Just because you can't tell the difference between an actual Caravaggio and a reproduction doesn't mean the man sat there painting on two easels at once.

And how, in practice, would it make a difference?
Would any of the versions have a sense that they are older?
 

Back
Top Bottom