Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

The important question is: if the transporter works as originally designed - dematerializing you in the process - is this just moving you, or is it killing you?

The option of modifying it to not dematerialize you, but copy you, is how this question stops being tautological. Imagine there's a "copy/move" mode switch. Is the act of switching it to "move" a decision to murder the "input you" (or commit suicide, if you're operating the device yourself)?

EDIT:

Downstream from that come the legal questions like, does the person leaving the transporter at the destination have rights to your identity, accounts, assets? Are they married to your spouse? Does this depend on whether the switch on transporter was on "move" or "copy" position? If so, why? And how does this square with ethics?

View on HN

No, that switch, even if it's only hypothetical, completely resolves the paradox, as I discuss above. You destroy your body, you die. Someone else does it for you - they murder you. There is no paradox. Sure, it may give a a warm fuzzy feeling that someone else with your background will continue to live, taking your memories with them, but you press the button and your light goes out.

if there is a exact working copy of you, then you don't "stop existing". What does that even mean?

Do you die every night when you go to sleep?

Well, I'd maintain that your memories 'live' on, but you're no longer there to enjoy them, that's someone else. If that's enough for you, great for you. I personally enjoy having experiences myself.

> What does that even mean?

What does what even mean? To stop existing? Is that a serious question?

you can not define what is that 'you' that is not there to enjoy, so, how do you know that it didn't transfer too? is a faith thing?

Ultimately, “I think therefore I am”, so I know what “I” am.

but that copy of you would think too, so, what's the difference?

You think so, too, does that mean we are the same person? I don't think so. The same holds for the copy.

But we are the same on that, that's what "same" means.

We are not the same person, because we are different in some other characteristics and in our circumstances.

What's the reason you and your copy are not the same?

I don't understand your point. Are we 'same' (your first sentence) or are we not 'same' (your second sentence)?

My copy and I are different persons because my copy has its own mind in its own brain in its own body. Just like you and I. Why would there be any more reason to think my copy and I are the same self, than to think you and I are the same self?

Again, how do you resolve making several copies?

[edited some formulations to make it clearer]

Different copies are the same at moment zero (after copying) and diverge after that, assuming different stimulus.

Sure, but that's not related to my statement.

> Do you die every night when you go to sleep?

Of course not! It's a different person every time.

I don't see any problem. I have a file in my computer, I send it to your computer, I can delete it from my computer or not.

The legal status of the file will have to be decided by society for solving practical problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com