= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Timeless Identity - 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 (234)
Your probabilities add up to more than 1...
Of course they do. Why shouldn't they?
What is your probability that you will wake up tomorrow morning?
What is your probability that you will wake up Friday morning?
I expect to do both, so my probabilities of those two things add up to ~2.
In Mark's scenario, I expect to go bowling and I expect to go to the beach.
My probabilities of those two things similarly add up to ~2.
I think we have the same model of the situation, but I feel compelled to normalize my probability. A guess as to why:
I can rephrase Mark's question as, "In 10 hours, will you remember having gone to the beach or having bowled?" (Assume the simulation will continue running!) There'll be a you that went bowling and a you that went to the beach, but no single you that did both of those things. Your successive wakings example doesn't have this property.
I suppose I answer 50% to indicate my uncertainty about which future self we're talking about, since there are two possible referents. Maybe this is unhelpful.
Yes, that seems to be what's going on.
That said, normalizing my probability as though there were only going to be one of me at the end of the process doesn't seem at all compelling to me. I don't have any uncertainty about which future self we're talking about -- we're talking about both of them.
Suppose that you and your husband are planning to take the day off tomorrow, and he is planning to go bowling, and you are planning to go to the beach, and I ask the two of you "what's y'all's probability that one of y'all will go bowling, and what's y'all's probability that one of y'all will go to the beach?" It seems the correct answers to those questions will add up to more than 1, even though no one person will experience bowling AND going to the beach. In 10 hours, one of you will will remember having gone to the beach, and one will remember having bowled.
This is utterly unproblematic when we're talking about two people.
In the duplication case, we're still talking about two people, it's just that right now they are both me, so I get to answer for both of them. So, in 10 hours, I (aka "one of me") will remember having gone to the beach. I will also remember having bowled. I will not remember having gone to the beach and having bowled. And my probabilities add up to more than 1.
I recognize that it doesn't seem that way to you, but it really does seem like the obvious way to think about it to me.
I think your description is coherent and describes the same model of reality I have. :)
Yes. Probabilities aside, this is what I was asking.
I was asking a disguised question. I really wanted to know: "which of the two future selfs do you identify with, and why?"
Oh, that's easy. Both of them, equally. Assuming accurate enough simulations etc., of course.
ETA: Why? Well, they'll both think that they're me, and I can't think of a way to disprove the claim of one without also disproving the claim of the other.
Any of the models of consciousness-as-continuity would offer a definitive prediction.
IMO, there literally is no fact of the matter here, so I will bite the bullet and say that any model that supposes there is one is wrong. :) I'll reconsider if you can point to an objective feature of reality that changes depending on the answer to this. (So-and-so will think it to be immoral doesn't count!)
I won't because that's not what I'm arguing. My position is that subjective experience has moral consequences, and therefore matters.
PS: The up/down karma vote isn't a record of what you agree with, but whether a post has been reasonably argued.
OK, that's fine, but I'm not convinced-- I'm having trouble thinking of something that I consider to be a moral issue that doesn't have a corresponding consequence in the territory.
PS: That downvote wasn't me. I'm aware of how votes work around here. :)
Example: is it moral to power-cycle (hibernate, turn off, power on, restore) a computer running an self-aware AI? WIll future machine intelligences view any less-than-necessary AGI experiments I run the same way we do Josef Mengele's work in Auschwitz? Is it a possible failure mode that an unfriendly/not-proovably-friendly AI that experiences routine power cycling might uncover this line of reasoning and decide it doesn't want to “die” every night when the lights go off? What would it do then?
For many people, the up/down karma vote is a record of what we want more/less of.
It is neither of those things. This isn't debate club. We don't have to give people credit for finding the most clever arguments for a wrong position.
I make no comment about the subject of debate is in this context (I don't know or care which party is saying crazy things about 'conciousness'). I downvoted the parent specifically because it made a normative assertion about how people should use the karma mechanism which is neither something I support nor an accurate description of an accepted cultural norm. This is an example of voting being used legitimately in a way that is nothing to do with whether the post has been reasonably argued.
I did use the term "reasonably argued" but I didn't mean clever. Maybe "rationally argued"? By my own algorithm a cleverly argued but clearly wrong argument would not garner an up vote.
I gave you an upvote for explaining your down vote.