Are you going to threaten violence again and record it on tape (despite the fact that said violence would only occur if the tape was deleted)?
...
I may need to listen to it.
The idea is that, in order for me to survive, there has to be an unbroken chain of consciousness back to this point.
Ever hear of Last Tuesdayism? Short version, you have no way of knowing that there was a time before the now. It's an interesting philosophical concept. From such a perspective, it isn't hard to see why the concept of "an unbroken chain of consciousness" is kinda silly. How can you ever know if you are, say, the "real" Kriellya or a perfect clone thereof? (Assume that this is possible in your world.)
Any time that someone cannot ever prove that they are "real" is kinda silly and should be avoided.
In this framework, a clone is either the creation of a branch in this chain, and the nanosecond after you've created the clone it is no longer me, or a clone is the creation of an entirely different chain that happens to be completely identical up to the point of it's creation.
It's pretty clearly the branch, for the kind of clones we're talking about. After all, if Steve is cloned at t=0, then come t=10, both Steve and Steve' will have identical memories and experiences for negative time; any changes would have to be from t>0.
And with a branching path...well, which path is right, and which is wrong?
Either way, if you kill me, and end the original chain, I am done. I am not that clone. My experience will cease. And while, to the outside world, there will indeed be absolutely no difference, and the clone will be just as convinced as I was that it is me, I will be just as dead.
Guess what? You're dead. Like I've said, every cell in your body dies and is replaced every couple weeks. You're already gone. And if you're not defining yourself by your body, or by your experiences and personality, what
are you defining it by?
Some kind of undefinable spirit or soul? But then, how do you know that your spirit didn't leave your body already, or your soul enter your clone? It's inherently unreasonable to reach for something so undefinable in a debate about definition.
If he is "reset" to the same state, doesn't that mean he loses all the points he gained from level ups?
...his mind goes back and he returns to the way he was at the time of death...
If that extract was referring to his first death, then Grate would lose all his stat ups, modifications, implantation and gained skills every single time he dies.
...
Well, crap. Grate's never becoming useful.
But how does that make sense in this context?
"Y'know, that thing with Grate."
"You mean his rampant uselessness?"
"No, when he dies."
"Oh. Got it."
That's far more painless than our discussion. Even more painless if you put 'death' in the first sentence. Hence, I said that the discussion causes more pain than the problem.
I'll admit that not knowing the name of a rose is fairly confusing though.
The problem is, we're not talking about Grate, we're talking about his immortality.
Oddly enough, the first time I encountered that problem was with Autoduel, an old C64 game that had nothing to do with philosophy.
...?
To me, the important aspect is that I be able to draw a straight line from my current experience to my original experience. A clone is a break in this line, and as such would not qualify as being 'me'. The nanosecond it has a different experience to me (or 'as soon as it is created'), it has diverged in an unrecoverable means. It is no longer me in a way that I feel is fundamental.
And in that nanosecond, the you you consider you has diverged approximately equally from the "you" you were.
And guess what? The kind of clone we're talking about
can also draw a straight line from his current experience to the original experience. Why is your claim on that line better than the clone's?
And on the hardware front, our brain's are not static objects. Not by a long shot. The data and the hardware does define me. It is all that I am. (as far as we know) As I change, so does it. As it changes, so do I.
Then why can't the clone change without being considered not you?
[L]et's consider something. See, I'm going to define me very precisely, as a specific configuration of atoms with a very specific location and vector in spacetime. Now, what I'm not going to include in this is that I be a configuration of *specific* atoms. I can be any atoms you want, as long as those atoms are identical and placed in the configuration as specified.
And therefore you will be dead, because the atoms in your current body are not the ones that were in your body a year or two ago, let alone the ones which were in your body when you were born.
And let's not get started on the issues with changing your location or velocity without becoming someone else.
In fact, it gives you precisely one way to do so: to replace all of the atoms in the configuration with identical atoms, without changing their configuration, location, or vector.
...Isn't that basically what Grate does?
If you try and create a clone in any other fashion, I will say that he is not me.
And he will be entirely justified in saying that you are not you.
We will be the same in every way, except for one: he will be experiencing the world from 3 feet to the left. Or right. Or 10 seconds after my demise. Whatever configuration we imagine doing this in. And this might seem insignificant, but I can think of nothing more fundamentally different about two individuals.
And how is this different from you moving three feet to the side, or waiting ten seconds?
I would say yes. The continuity of experience (or, occasionally, existence) of the brain is the important thing to me, not the 'jar'.
What about if you copied the consciousness into a computer?
Author
Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO (Read 2534326 times)