From: Lee Corbin (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2008 - 22:44:12 MDT
>> As you know, I go even further and if one of my copies had to
>> die, they wouldn't particularly care which, so long as some ample
>> reward to the remaining ones was provided.
> Would you continue to say this no matter how differentiated your
> copies became? (In other words, no matter how long the time period
> was?) If so, then I think we have stumbled upon a real-world
> difference between our opinions. So maybe it's not just an issue of
> language after all :)
No, eventually my copy will turn into a different person, as in the
example you provided (omitted). I figure it's the same rate that
I become someone else anyway, i.e., I'd say that at about age
19 I was 50% the person I am today, and I would expect that
at the rate I change, I'll won't become 50% different again for
many, many more decades. (Of course these numbers are pure
guesswork, but they convey my attitude: no sacrifice---supposing
I'm a Most Selfish Individual---for a copy unless it's recent (i.e.
a few years or so).
>> Because they're *so much* less identical than physical duplicates,
>> we thought it a weak attack.
> I agree that twins are less identical than physical duplicates. But
> physical duplicates are only identical at the microsecond of copying,
> and become more and more differentiated as time goes on. Far into the
> future, they are almost as different as the twins.
> In fact, strictly speaking the twins are physical duplicates as well,
> they were just duplicated in the egg before being born. Since a
> lot of our behavior is determined by things that happen to us before
> birth, they have had a lot of time to become different. The copies
> made later on have had less time, and they share a significant portion
> of their memories. But other than that, I don't see how it is any different.
I agree completely.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT