Hacker News Reader

Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

Why do people think that version is "you". Or rather "me". Even if it is indistinguishable to an outside observer, it's not "you".

The way easy to verify this is remove the death condition. Do you think you are suddenly experiencing both realities? The computer version can clone itself too. It need not experience the realities simultaneously and almost certainly won't. Though that isn't to say it couldn't recombine the knowledge (or even upload to the human). But none of that is "you".

But to the article I'm sure random people would be booted back up. Though I'm pretty sure if it's an accurate representation of me it wouldn't want to exist as just a tool for historians (to proxy interviewing people of the past). So maybe by careful booting "me" back up

View on HN

>Why do people think that version is "you". Or rather "me"

Why do you think the consciousness that wakes in your body is the one that fell asleep the night before? Because it can access the same memories and is stuck in the same tube of meat?

>Though I'm pretty sure if it's an accurate representation of me it wouldn't want to exist as just a tool

https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

Either answer to that question does not make mine any less true.

But still, that question isn't relevant. There's a continuous process. If you want to make the ship of Theseus, sure. But an upload or clone is certainly distinct.

I'm aware of no process by which I would have been destroyed and recreated in my sleep, and I actually take my memories and meat tube to be rather strong evidence, so I take the simpler assumption that I persisted. If I receive evidence to the contrary, I'll reevaluate.

In this scenario, we've already posited that I've been destroyed and recreated. So I don't think these are comparable.

  > In this scenario, we've already posited that I've been destroyed and recreated. So I don't think these are comparable.

Thank you. I do not understand why people cannot distinguish this critical factor.

There are other critical factors that need to be considered in these discussions : - Can multiple entities exist simultaneously? (maybe not in an example, but under the conditions of a scenario) - Does destruction occur? How do we define destruction? - Are we teenagers smoking weed commenting on HN or have we read philosophy, understand the No Cloning Theorem[0], continuity, formal logic[1], and other such things?

  > I'm aware of no process by which I would have been destroyed and recreated in my sleep

Again, thank you. I think people forget how proofs work. Maybe because the confusion between "the absence of proof is not proof of absence" and "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? I know that the Von Neuman's Elephant[2] is well known, but it appears that the reasoning for it is not so much (as well as a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor). Since it is actually about how experimental or empirical evidence for things is weak and far from proof of such processes (though it is not lack of evidence either).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Methodology-Deduct...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%27s_elephant

I am just a program that runs on my meat computer. Upload me to a computer and I am still me just running on a silicon computer. So if you upload me and my meat computer is still running, unless I have a soul somewhere that I don't know about, they would both be me. I wouldn't experience both realities simultaneously, there would just be two of me.

You've made a leap in logic by not breaking down the steps enough and assuming positions I hold.

I'm not contesting that you're a meat computer (I actually believe this since I don't believe in magic). I also don't believe in a soul, except in the figurative sense (e.g. "this music is lacking soul").

  >  wouldn't experience both realities simultaneously, there would just be two of me.

By saying this you unknowingly agree with me. Carefully reread what I wrote reconsidering your assumptions.

Specifically this part

  >> Why do people think that version is "you". Or rather "me". Even if it is indistinguishable to an outside observer, it's not "you".

Take a program that has memory and responds to inputs and copy it onto a disk drive. It is not running so not responding. Now install it onto another computer which isn't connected to first. Are these the same programs? Yes.

Now assume the program is self modifying. Is it still yes?

Self modifying code is not fungible.

A short story that explores some of these questions is "Where Am I" by Daniel Dennett, linked-to here: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/daniel-dennett-where-am-i...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com