X-Message-Number: 9304 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:41:17 -0800 From: "Joseph J. Strout" <> Subject: on hydrogen and persons In Message #9295, Robert Ettinger <> writes: >Using appropriate quantum terminology and spacetime coordinates, I describe a >hydrogen atom, far out in intergalactic space, in its lowest energy state; >then I describe a photon coming along and exciting the atom. This might be >done on a Turing tape; or I might just use words spoken aloud. Have I, in some >sense, created a hydrogen atom? When I stop talking, or the tape stops moving, >does the atom go back to oblivion? > >Unless an info person claims that my story does indeed constitute the PHYSICAL >CREATION of a hydrogen atom (even though one of a different sort, in a >different "universe"), he must recant on the person emulation thesis. Not at all. Your conclusion would be true if a person were a physical object, like a hydrogen atom. The argument would be: 1. A description does not create or constitute a physical object. 2. A person is a physical object. 3. Therefore, a description does not create or constitute a person. The logic here is correct, but premise #2 is false, so the conclusion is false as well. A person is NOT a physical object. A person is a set of habits, personality traits, memories, skills, quirks, loves, hates, and so on. (Without intending to cloud the issue, treating a person as a physical object strikes me as not only logically questionable, but probably immoral as well.) Instead of comparing a person to a hydrogen atom, you should compare him to a story. Using appropriate language, words, and turns of phrase, I describe the story of Moby Dick in complete detail, starting with "Call me Ishmael" and proceeding to the end, with all the characters, action, and words of the original. Have I, in some sense, instantiated the Moby Dick story? Of course I have! Is it the same story written by Herman Melville? Of course it is! This confusion between a physical object and its information content is, I believe, the underlying cause of most of the confusion regarding personal identity. If I have a copy of Moby Dick lying on my desk, I can treat it as an object, or I can treat it as a story. Both views are correct in some sense, but one rather misses the point. As an object, it is unique, uncopyable, and irreplacable; if it gets tossed in the fireplace, it is gone forever. I should morn such a loss very greatly. As a story, it is one instance with many identical duplicates. It is copyable (the trusty Xerox machine could do the job, with enough patience); it can even be uploaded into my computer via a scanner, and still remain the same story. If my copy falls into the fire, I am only out the few bucks it will take to go to the bookstore and buy another copy -- the new copy is just as good as the original, because they are *the same story*. With a book, it is obvious (isn't it?) that the story is the more important and appropriate criterion for identity, rather than the physical object embodying it. With a person, which is more important -- his hopes, dreams, memories, and personality, or the hydrogen (and other) atoms he's made of? ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Department of Neuroscience, UCSD | | http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/ | `------------------------------------------------------------------' Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9304