= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
aausch comments on Welcome to Heaven - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (242)
Probably the "friendly" action would be to create an un-drunk copy of them, and ask the copy to decide.
And what do you do with the copy? Kill it?
I'm OK with the deletion of very-short-lived copies of myself if there are good reasons to do it. For example, supposing after cryonic suspension I'm revived with scanning and WBE. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to those reviving me, I have a phobia of the Michelin Man and the picture of him on the wall means I deal with the shock of my revival very badly. I'd want the revival team to just shut down, change the picture on the wall and try again.
I can also of course imagine lots of circumstances where deletion of copies would be much less morally justifiable.
There's a very nice thought experiment that helps demonstrate this (I think it's from Nozick). Imagine a sleeping pill that makes you fall asleep in thirty minutes, but you won't remember the last fifteen minutes of being awake. From the point of view of your future self, the fifteen minutes you don't remember is exactly like a short-lived copy that got deleted after fifteen minutes. It's unlikely that anyone would claim taking the pill is unethical, or that you're killing a version of yourself by doing so.
Armchair reasoning: I can imagine the mental clone and the original existing at the same time, side-by-side. I cannot imagine myself with the memory loss and myself without the memory loss as existing at the same time. Also, whatever actions my past self does actually affects my future self regardless of what I remember. As such, my instinct is to think of the copy as a separate identity and my past self as the same identity.
Your copy would also take actions that affects your future self. What is the difference here?
Imagine a scenario where I cut off my arm. I am responsible. If my copy cuts off my arm, he would be responsible, not "me."
This is all playing semantics with personal identity. I am not trying to espouse any particular belief; I am only offering one possible difference between the idea of forgetting your past and copying yourself.
That doesn't make any sense. Your copy is you.
Yeah, okay. You are illustrating my point exactly. Not everyone thinks the way you do about identity and not everyone thinks the way I mentioned about identity. I don't hold hard and fast about it one way or the other.
But the original example of someone who loses 15 minutes being similar to killing off a copy who only lived for 15 minutes implies a whole ton of things about identity. The word "copy" is too ambiguous to say, "Your copy is you."
If I switched in, "X's copy is X" and then started talking about various cultural examples of copying we quickly run into trouble. Why does "X's copy is X" work for people? Unless I missed a definition of terms comment or post somewhere, I don't see how we can just assume that is true.
The first use of "copy" I found in this thread is:
It was followed by:
As best as I can tell, you take the sentence, "Your copy is you" to be a tautology or definition or something along those veins. (I could obviously be wrong; please correct me if I am.) What would you call a functionally identical version of X with a separate, distinct Identity? Is it even possible? If it is, use that instead of "copy" when reading my comment:
When I read the original comment I responded to:
I was not assuming your definition of copy. Which could entirely be my fault, but I find it hard to believe that you didn't understand my point enough to predict this response. If you did, it would have been much faster to simply say, "When people at LessWrong talk about copies they mean blah." In which case I would have responded, "Oh, okay, that makes sense. Ignore my comment."
The semantics get easier if you think of both as being copies, so you have past-self, copy-1, and copy-2. Then you can ask which copy is you, or if they're both you. (If past-self is drunk, copy-1 is drunk, and copy-2 is sober, which copy is really more "you"?)
I'd actually be kinda hesitant of such pills and would need to think it out. The version of me that is in those 15 minutes might be a bit unhappy about the situation, for one thing.
Such pills do exist in the real world: a lot of sleeping pills have similar effects, as does consuming significant amounts of alcohol.
For that matter, so does falling asleep in the normal way.
And it basically results in 15 minutes of experience that simply "go away"? no gradual transition/merging into the mainline experience, simply 15 minutes that get completely wiped?
eeew.
Certainly - this is the restore-from-backup scenario, for which Blueberry's sleeping-pill comparison was apt. (I would definitely like to make a secure backup before taking a risk, personally.) What I wanted to suggest was that duplicate-for-analysis was less clear-cut.
What's the difference? Supposing that as a matter of course the revival team try a whole bunch of different virtual environments looking for the best results, is that restore-from-backup or duplicate-for-analysis?
Suppose that we ironically find that the limitations on compute hardware mean that no matter how much we spend we hit an exact 1:1 ratio between subjective and real time, but that the hardware is super-cheap. Also, there's no brain "merge" function. I might fork off a copy to watch a movie to review it for myself, to decide whether the "real me" should watch it.
As MrHen pointed out, you can imagine the 'duplicate' and 'original' existing side-by-side - this affects intuitions in a number of ways. To pump intuition for a moment, we consider identical twins to be different people due to the differences in their experiences, despite their being nearly identical on a macro level. I haven't done the calculations to decide where the border of acceptable use of duplication lies, but deleting a copy which diverged from the original twenty years before clearly appears to be over the line.
Absolutely, which is why I specified short-lived above.
Though it's very hard to know how I would face the prospect of being deleted and replaced with a twenty-minute-old backup in real life!
I may be answering an un-asked question, since I haven't been following this conversation, but the following solution to the issue of clones occurs to me:
Leave it up to the clone.
Make suicide fully legal and easily available (possibly 'suicide of any copy of a person in cases where more than one copy exists', though that could allow twins greater leeway depending on how you define 'person' - perhaps also add a time limit: the split must have occurred within N years). When a clone is created, it's automatically given the rights to 1/2 of the original's wealth. If the clone suicides, the original 'inherits' the wealth back. If the clone decides not to suicide, it automatically keeps the wealth that it has the rights to.
Given that a clone is functionally the same person as the original, this should be an ethical solution (assuming that you consider suicide ethical at all) - someone would have to be very sure that they'd be able to go through with suicide, or very comfortable with the idea of splitting their wealth in half, in order to be willing to take the risk of creating a clone. The only problem that I see is with unsplittable things like careers and relationships. (Flip a coin? Let the other people involved decide?)
This seems like a good solution. If I cloned myself, I'd want it to be established beforehand which copy would stay around, and which copy would go away. For instance, if you're going to make a copy that goes to watch a movie to see if the movie is worth your time, the copy that watches the movie should go away, because if it's good the surviving version of yourself will watch it anyway.
I (and thus my clones) don't see it as suicide, more like amnesia, so we'd have no problem going through with it if the benefit outweighed the amnesia.
If you keep the clone around, in terms of splitting their wealth, both clones can work and make money, so you should get about twice the income for less than twice the expenses (you could share some things). In terms of relationships, you could always bring the clones into a relationship. A four way relationship, made up of two copies of each original person, might be interesting.
Hmm... *Imagines such a relationship with significant other.* Holy hell that would be weird. The amount of puzzling scenarios I can think of just by sitting here is extravagant. Does anyone know of a decent novel based on this premise?
I don't think those kinds of situations will need to be spelled out in advance, actually. Coming up with a plan that's acceptable to both versions of yourself before going through with the cloning should be about as easy as coming up with a plan that's acceptable to just one version, once you're using the right kind of framework to think about it. (You should be about equally willing to take either role, in other words, otherwise your clone is likely to rebel, and since they're considered independent from the get-go (and not bound by any contracts they didn't sign, I assume), there's not much you can do about that.)
Setting up four-way relationships would definitely be interesting. Another scenario that I like is one where you make a clone to pursue an alternate life-path that you suspect might be better but think is too risky - after a year (or whatever), whichever of you is less happy could suicide and give their wealth to the other one, or both could decide that their respective paths are good and continue with half-wealth.
I imagine it would be much like a case of amnesia, only with less disorientation.
Edit: Wait, I'm looking at the wrong half. One moment.
Edit: I suppose it would depend on the circumstances - "fear" is an obvious one, although mitigated to an extent by knowing that I would not be leaving a hole behind me (no grieving relatives, etc.).
Depends on how much it cost me to make it, and how much it costs to keep it around. I'm permanently busy, I'm sure I could use a couple of extra hands around the house ;)