Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2012, 02:18 AM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(28-08-2012 03:25 PM)sekanitembo Wrote:  <snip>

I'm not convinced that something having an abstract "numerical identity" has any real meaning. It's what physically exists that matters. What about when I wake up after being asleep, the information gets reinitialized then but I am still me - not some completely different being.

I am saying that everything gets simulated exactly; right down to the states of atoms. (Even if this may not be practically possible, what would it imply in theory?)

Leonardo da Vinci Wrote:While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die.
Epicurus Wrote:Death means nothing to us...when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 06:32 AM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
How about, is an exact duplicate of me, me?

I'd say no, even if identical in every fashion that that exact copy would be distinct from me. So as far as just a complicated simulation, not only no, but hells no.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 06:29 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(30-08-2012 02:18 AM)Carnifex Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 03:25 PM)sekanitembo Wrote:  <snip>

I'm not convinced that something having an abstract "numerical identity" has any real meaning. It's what physically exists that matters. What about when I wake up after being asleep, the information gets reinitialized then but I am still me - not some completely different being.

I am saying that everything gets simulated exactly; right down to the states of atoms. (Even if this may not be practically possible, what would it imply in theory?)

I'm not sure numerical identity is really an abstraction. That's the only way to differentiate between two otherwise identical objects. All I mean by numerical identity is that they are one and the same. Let's use a more simple example. I have a Ticonderoga, #2 pencil. I put this in a "perfect duplicator," and produce an identical pencil. Since they're identical in every physical way possible, how do we differentiate? We say that we have pencil 1, and pencil 2. However, in your example you talked about how you're preserving this pencil just before it's destroyed. So pencil 1 ceases to exist. Now, how is pencil 2 any different than pencil 1? It's not. For all intents and purposes, it is indeed pencil 1.

When you're referring to a human, it seems you are accepting the presupposition that because we're human, we have some "thing" that defines us as an individual that couldn't be duplicated. I'll call it consciousness. In your example, everything is duplicated, so by definition the consciousness would be duplicated also. Therefore, when person 1 dies, person 2 is for all intents and purposes person 1, with no distinguishable differences down to the sub-atomic level.

When you wake up every morning, there is no evidence that you are in fact still "you." You may have had a bed bug take some bites out of you. Your brain, in repairing and doing other functions while asleep, is no longer wired the same as it was when you went to sleep. What you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that because you wake up and you're conscious, you make the assumption that you are in fact still the same "you" from the night before. To take it a step further, think about this from second to second. Your brain is not the same as it was one single second ago, let alone the many seconds during a night of sleep.

As another thought experiment, let's say you go sleep, a beam in your ceiling breaks, gives you a nasty concussion, and you wake up with no memory of who "you" are. Are you still you?

Or look up Phineas Gage, he took a railroad spike through the frontal lobe and his personality changed after he recovered. While it's nice to take the common sense notion that it's still him, this doesn't help when we're trying to discuss theoretical situations like exact duplication, or trying to flesh out exactly what consciousness "is".

If you're supposing the more straightforward situation, where we have Person A and duplicate that person as Person A(sub 1). Then obviously, Person A is not Person A(sub 1). They are not numerically identical. In your initial example, though, we HAD Person A who dies. The question then is, is Person A(sub 1) the same person as Person A was? You yourself are saying that it's only what's physically there that matters, and since you said everything is duplicated it seems there shouldn't be a discrepancy that it is indeed the same person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 06:35 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(30-08-2012 06:32 AM)Humakt Wrote:  How about, is an exact duplicate of me, me?

I'd say no, even if identical in every fashion that that exact copy would be distinct from me. So as far as just a complicated simulation, not only no, but hells no.

Yes, if you change the question to "is a copy the original?", then no, it's not. The original question was posed as making a duplicate that came into existence as the original passed out of existence. Also, the notion that it is "just" a complicated simulation goes out the window when you're talking about exact, complete, down to a quantum level, duplication. Assuming this sort of thing would even be possible, I think it's a bit brash to say you can be so certain about what that duplication would imply.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 04:31 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(30-08-2012 06:35 PM)sekanitembo Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 06:32 AM)Humakt Wrote:  How about, is an exact duplicate of me, me?

I'd say no, even if identical in every fashion that that exact copy would be distinct from me. So as far as just a complicated simulation, not only no, but hells no.

Yes, if you change the question to "is a copy the original?", then no, it's not. The original question was posed as making a duplicate that came into existence as the original passed out of existence. Also, the notion that it is "just" a complicated simulation goes out the window when you're talking about exact, complete, down to a quantum level, duplication. Assuming this sort of thing would even be possible, I think it's a bit brash to say you can be so certain about what that duplication would imply.

You might find it brash, but "I" am the sensation of me. No matter how perfect the duplicate "I" will not share that singular feeling with it, it will be seperate and distinct from me. I deliberatly expanded the question to the that extreme to say that even at that extreme it would not be me, as even at that extreme it would distinct from the singular that "I" am.

So, brash or not I can be and am certain that even if posable it would'nt be me.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 05:22 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(28-08-2012 04:07 AM)Carnifex Wrote:  I don't really understand those who are saying it "of course" would be a copy. This is just special pleading, the thought experiment is that every single - that is absolutely every piece - of information that makes you, You - as a separate thing from everyone else - is recreated identically. To say its just a copy is surely to say that there's some other information that for some reason can't be recreated.
Remember, individual atoms do not have identities, if, right now, every electron in your body was replaced with the electrons from the wall, it would not make any difference to you. Wink

Check out Daniel Dennett, he'd prolly have a view; he is into rights for computers and that kind of stuff. Cryonics is also interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 06:02 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(31-08-2012 04:31 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 06:35 PM)sekanitembo Wrote:  Yes, if you change the question to "is a copy the original?", then no, it's not. The original question was posed as making a duplicate that came into existence as the original passed out of existence. Also, the notion that it is "just" a complicated simulation goes out the window when you're talking about exact, complete, down to a quantum level, duplication. Assuming this sort of thing would even be possible, I think it's a bit brash to say you can be so certain about what that duplication would imply.

You might find it brash, but "I" am the sensation of me. No matter how perfect the duplicate "I" will not share that singular feeling with it, it will be seperate and distinct from me. I deliberatly expanded the question to the that extreme to say that even at that extreme it would not be me, as even at that extreme it would distinct from the singular that "I" am.

So, brash or not I can be and am certain that even if posable it would'nt be me.

Since we're changing the question willy nilly, what would you say if that sensation could be transferred? altered? disabled? You cease being "you" then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 07:43 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(31-08-2012 06:02 PM)sekanitembo Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 04:31 PM)Humakt Wrote:  You might find it brash, but "I" am the sensation of me. No matter how perfect the duplicate "I" will not share that singular feeling with it, it will be seperate and distinct from me. I deliberatly expanded the question to the that extreme to say that even at that extreme it would not be me, as even at that extreme it would distinct from the singular that "I" am.

So, brash or not I can be and am certain that even if posable it would'nt be me.

Since we're changing the question willy nilly, what would you say if that sensation could be transferred? altered? disabled? You cease being "you" then?

Ok to answer the original question and every variation of it, no it wouldnt be me, I me, in what ever it takes its still not me.

If the sensation could be transferred is also a different question to if it could be replicated. If thats a linguistic slip and you still mean simulated then its not me its a simulation.

If you mean transferred, I'll assume you mean transferring my consciousness from the meat puppet its in into something else, then yes I'd still be me.

As to altered, yes I'd still be me, although depending on the nature of the alteration I may not agree after the fact.

As to disabled, I'd still be me, but wether I'd be aware after the fact is another matter.

I think though, I am the same person I was as a child altough I of course a different person. The self is not a a solid state entity, it is a dynamic system constantly changing. The same as in there is a continuity during which I have always been me, different in that I think act and believe differently. It is difficult to convey my exact meaning as to same and different, in the same I mean that in absolute sence, in different I use that in the sence of linguistic convention.

Not sure if that makes a great deal of sense, but I know what I mean Smile

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 08:15 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(28-08-2012 03:29 PM)sekanitembo Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 03:16 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  I don't know why everyone is having such a hard time with this. Let's alter this scenario a tiny bit to make a point here. Instead of having another "You" created AFTER you die, let's have ten "You's" created while you are alive. Why would you hear their thoughts? Why would you feel their pains and pleasures? Etc... The answer is you wouldn't. Why? Because they are not you, and you are not them. Just because you are dead and one of "You" exist does not mean it is you, no more than it is "You" when you both exist.

When you die, there is nothing about "You" left living. You are going to be in eternal darkness--for all we can assume that is. Why the hell is everyone making this difficult?

I also agree there's no need to overcomplicate at the root level. But, again, the definition of "you" is vague. I think you're referring to awareness. I think OP is talking about numerical/qualitative identity.

Yes, awareness is what I was assuming everyone was on about. If it is "would the newly created me continue to live as I would have" then, yes, I guess? It looks like you, talks like you, acts like you, loves like you, then it's you.

But as I was previously stating--and awareness is a much better way to word it. Thank you--then obviously no, this new you isn't you.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 08:32 PM
RE: Is a sufficiently complex simulation of you....you?
(31-08-2012 08:15 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 03:29 PM)sekanitembo Wrote:  I also agree there's no need to overcomplicate at the root level. But, again, the definition of "you" is vague. I think you're referring to awareness. I think OP is talking about numerical/qualitative identity.

Yes, awareness is what I was assuming everyone was on about. If it is "would the newly created me continue to live as I would have" then, yes, I guess? It looks like you, talks like you, acts like you, loves like you, then it's you.

But as I was previously stating--and awareness is a much better way to word it. Thank you--then obviously no, this new you isn't you.

So are identical twins who think and act the same, the same person?

If you say they dont think exactly the same, then does your "copy" not almost immediatly start to think differently to you as its sensory input will differ from yours at the point of creation. The longer it exists the more divergent its expierance will be, the more its expierance differ the less like you it will be.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: