= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on Continuity in Uploading - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (87)
That's the same as "I".
There is one instance. It forks. There are two instances. If you claim that one of them was the original instance, you are using "I".
I'd say that past!you, upload!you, and meat!you are three distinct instances of the class you. Thinking you're going to die means that past!you does not believe that there is a future!you.
Well, yes. What I was trying to do was avert a confusion where "I" might refer to an instance (meat brain, silicon RAM copy #224) or might refer to a class (the abstract computation they're both running), by specifying the intended meaning. That is the point of tabooing, right?
Thanks; this seems to be the source of disagreement. I see two instances, not three, the second forking at the moment of upload and running the same program with a new PID. I don't think we'll find common ground here, and I'm not sure I'm up to defending my position on the subject. I just found the consequences of that position interesting to explore.