= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
torekp comments on Your transhuman copy is of questionable value to your meat self. - 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 (140)
I don't really understand the point of view of people like torekp who would say, "No, they're just different interpretations of "you"."
I don't know about you, but I'm not accustomed to being able to change my interpretation of who I am to such an extent that I can change what sensory stimuli I experience.
I can't just say to myself, "I identify with Barack Obama's identity" and expect to start experiencing the sensory stimuli that he is experiencing.
Likewise, I don't expect to be able to say to myself, "I identify with my clone" and expect to start experiencing the sensory stimuli that the clone is experiencing.
I don't seem to get a choice in the matter. If I enter the teleporter machine, I can WANT to identify with my clone that will be reconstructed on Mars all I want, but I don't expect that I will experience stepping out of the teleporter on Mars.
Personal identity is vague or ambiguous insofar as it has no clear answer in sci-fi scenarios where pattern-identity and meat-identity diverge. But that doesn't mean there is any sense in which you can be the "same person" as Barack Obama. Nor, obviously, do two unrelated bodies share experiences.
On the other hand, if you want to empathize and care deeply about Barack Obama's future experiences, you can. Nothing wrong with that.
But that has little relevance to the point at hand.
You are really just saying the problem goes away if you redefine the terms. Like how people say "I achieve immortality through my kids" or "the ancients achieved immortality through their monuments." Sure it's true... For uninteresting definitions of "immortal."
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying." -- Woody Allen
But I don't think torekp is "just saying the problem goes away if you redefine the terms". Rather, that the problem only appears when you define your terms badly or don't understand the definitions you're using. Or, perhaps, that the problem is about how you define your terms. In that situation, finding helpful redefinitions is pretty much the best you can do.
"The problem is about how you define your terms" is pretty much it. It does no good to insist that our words must have clear reference in cases utterly outside of their historical use patterns. No matter how important to you the corresponding concept may be.
I have seen no evidence of that so far. torekp's posts so far have had nothing to do with the definition of "self" used by the OP, nor has he pointed out any problem specific to that usage.