X-Message-Number: 25421
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:06:38 -0800
Subject: Francois' Continuity
From: <>

Dear Francois:

You wrote:

"Suppose I am anesthetized and put through an atom for atom copying 
process. My copy and I are then placed in a room together and 
allowed to wake up. We are not told which is the original and which 
is the copy. Is there a way for us to decide simply by careful 
introspection? If there isn't, are the notions of original and copy 
still important?"

You can read my message to Ben Best, which resolved the duplicates 
paradox. The original has properties not shared by the duplicate, 
which properties can be verified by scientific evidence (in my 
example, video tapes, which will show the original to have taken 
part in the life events of the individual, but will show the copy 
to have been produced mere moments ago). Therefore, we have every 
reason to trust the original's claim that he is the original, and 
doubt the copy's claim---precisely because every other (testable) 
claim of the copy can be shown to be false, using the evidence we 
have.

For example, suppose you murdered someone before you were copied. 
It would be true that you murdered someone, but not that your copy 
murdered someone. Your copy came into existence after the murder, 
and therefore could not have murdered anyone, even if your copy 
(falsely) believed himself to have murdered someone.

Your essential claim is that because a copy would say he is the 
same, he is in fact the same. Not only is this absurd (see Robert's 
posts about delusions and hallucinations), but I have offered the 
preceding strong evidence that your claim is false. Since we know 
the copy did not commit the murder, or any other event in your life 
history, we know (with absolute certainty) that he speaks falsehood 
in 99.9999999% of what he says. Why would you, against this great 
amount of evidence, propose he is correct in the remaining 
0.0000001% of what he says---viz. his claim that he is the 
original???

You wrote in another message:

"If ever a sufficiently precise copy on my brain is made in the 
future, then 'I' will also exists at that other location."

This is only true if you define 'I' as the arrangement of matter in 
your head. However, inherently lacking in such a definition of 'I' 
is the inner subjective life that you experience. You are trying to 
leap from saying the same arrangement of matter exists, to saying 
your subjective inner life continues in a copy if the original is 
destroyed. Surely you recognize you cannot make this leap without 
justification.

Let us imagine you are copied while asleep, and you awaken facing 
the sun, while your copy awakens facing the moon. Each arrangement 
of matter will be seeing a different thing when it awakes. 
Therefore, it is not plausible to imagine you exist at both 
locations, seeing both the moon and the sun. Rather, you see one or 
the other. Which one is it? Clearly, you see the sun, while the 
copy sees the moon.

There is no reason to suppose that if you are killed shortly after 
waking up, you will go from seeing the sun to seeing the moon. This 
would involve some 'mystical essence' body-hopping of the sort that 
would violate relativity (not to mention violate a materialistic 
view of the universe). Rather, you would go from seeing the sun to 
not seeing, because you would not exist. Meanwhile, your copy would 
continue to see the moon.

You try to hold onto your patternist view because it comforts you. 
But it is an artifact of muddled thinking.

[snip]

You wrote:

"I and my copy could do the same and add to it our own subjective 
perception of our sense of identity. We could only conclude that we 
are two instantiations of the same person."

You can 'conclude' anything you want. But the existence of a copy 
of you should give you no comfort. If you die, you will not see the 
moon. That your copy will should give you no comfort.

Unless, perhaps, you just get a kick out of something like you 
continuing to exist after your death...which, I suppose, is one of 
the primary driving forces behind procreation.

[snip]

Best Regards,

Richard B. R.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25421