56 replies to this topic

[justinb]

Lets say I replicate, using nanites, Person X to the molecular level. Person X1 is created, a complete copy of Person X. Now, a problem arises. Person X had a girlfriend, parents, car, house, job.... a Life. Person X1 wants Person X's life. The only ethical way to solve this problem is to create all that Person X has for Person X, since Person X and X1 are selfish and wont share. Now all of his friends and family members are recreated. Althought the physical houses can be created because Person X1 wont like that the house is on a different street, etc. The people created for Person X1 want to live a life too, they are also unwilling to share..... a problem arises. The people involved in this dilemma will never be happy. What do you fellow philosophers think about this problem?

[Infernity]

LOL!
Well Justin, why would person X do that self interest in the first place then? [huh]

I think that X1 will have to demand X's life since it is his fault...

Yours
~Infernity

[armrha]

Lets say I replicate, using nanites, Person X to the molecular level.  Person X1 is created, a complete copy of Person X.  Now, a problem arises.  Person X had a girlfriend, parents, car, house, job.... a Life.  Person X1 wants Person X's life.  The only ethical way to solve this problem is to create all that Person X has for Person X, since Person X and X1 are selfish and wont share.  Now all of his friends and family members are recreated.  Althought the physical houses can be created because Person X1 wont like that the house is on a different street, etc.  The people created for Person X1 want to live a life too, they are also unwilling to share..... a problem arises.  The people involved in this dilemma will never be happy.  What do you fellow philosophers think about this problem?

Person X1 and X (mind if I use A and B?) are the same person, as they are completely interchangeable immediately following the molecular construction. That is, if they were both sleeping while being copied and reconstructed, and you switched beds, there would be no possible way to tell which was which. B (the 'copy') would certainly be just as entitled to everything A owned as A was. They would have to learn to share. For the important things, like you mentioned, they could replicate it. I can't imagine they could not come to terms on the housing. If absolutely neccessary, A and B could both move out of that house, putting it up for sale, and then splitting the value of it to go pursue a new house for both, as that's a reasonable fair assumption. Person A and Person B were the same person before the divergence, so I guess it's reasonable to assume he just either cut his wealth by 50% or planned on living with his copy. It'd be kinda like a divorce, if they went their seperate ways, selling off and making amends to make sure that each side got 50% of the total wealth.

At least that's how I'd see this working in real life...

I have a friend that talks about this all the time, that he just wishes he could make a clone that would go to work for him while he stays home and enjoys a day off (playing World of Warcraft in this case). Kind of silly, since the perfect copy wouldn't want to go to work more then he would. : )

[armrha]

Well Justin, why would person X do that self interest in the first place then? [huh]

I think that X1 will have to demand X's life since it is his fault...

It is just as much B's fault. The copy was made after the decision to make the copy was made, afterall... B remembers making the decision to make the copy.

[Infernity]

armrha,
Yes, but after all, X made it technically. Doesn't matter what X1 thinks, knows, etcetera...

The democracy still allow us to think without getting punished. Same is with these stuff...

However that copying process would HAVE to be videotaped so the copy will believe he is the copy.

Yours
~Infernity

[th3hegem0n]

Hm, well i guess the best way to solve the problem would be to create alternate universes for each person invovled.

Maybe that solution is the ultimate general solution to any moral situation.

same thing as

http://www.imminst.o...=3&t=5230&st=20

you can see my post toward the end of the topic

[bgwowk]

Hm, well i guess the best way to solve the problem would be to create alternate universes for each person invovled.

This is very easily done. The next time you are torn between two choices, let your choice be determined by quantum random numbers from

http://www.randomnumbers.info/

According to the leading interpretation of quantum mechanics among quantum theorists (MWI), you will split into two copies of yourself, one making one choice, and one the other choice. Moreoever, everything around you will also split as the quantum superposition spreads outward at the speed of light. Thus each duplicate effectively gets their own universe every time a quantum decision is made. The dilemma is resolved. Seriously.

Do I make decisions this way? No. Not because I don't think it's a valid mechanism, but because I almost always *prefer* one choice over another, and don't want to get stuck in a universe based on my non-preferred choice. That's the whole problem with these identity duplication scenarios. There are very few situations in which a person could rationally make a decision to be duplicated (e.g. small group of space travellers all agreeing on duplication as a way exploring star systems in parallel). Any other duplication scenario is an assault, not a choice.

---BrianW

[emerson]

X1 needs to realise what a sweet deal he's got going for him. I'd love a chance to have one of me take the safe route, the car/home/family/normal9-5 route, and another version of me start a new life trying out something more daring.

[justinb]

I think one solution would be to put one of the persons in a virtual environment, so they could have everything they "had" before. All you would have to do is make sure that the person that went into the virtual environment didn't know it was a virtual world.

[justinb]

Indefinite or eternal deception? Perhaps one should avoid wreckless duplication instead? I would rather sort out my estate with my duplicate rather than be put into a virtual environment against my will or without my knowledge.

Yeah, the duplicate would have to agree, then his or her memory will be wiped. Avoid wreckless duplication at all costs. Since a new life for the selfish duplicate would be physically impossible to create.

[th3hegem0n]

cosmos, i don't think you understand.

Assuming this alternate universe i'm talking about, you wouldn't know the difference, unless you decided to go explore the universe and venture deep into space. Then you would have to leave this simulated universe.

Other than that, it's exactly the same, except you have access to the operating system of the universe. Like your own personal genie, or god, or whatever you want to think of it as.

If I were this superhuman intelligent operating system then I could probably explain to you exactly why you would like the simulated universe better than your current situation. And I'm talking about persuading you like some kind of freak matrix knockoff, but actually showing you how its better in all the ways you care about except for you automatic prejudice. If you want to go explore the real universe, more power to you go for it. While the ship is travelling you can chill in the sim, and when you want to go check out the new galaxy you've entered then have fun. You could have a real world operating system that travels with you and fills the places you go, such that if you come into contact with people there will be insurances against getting killed or robbed or whatever. It will be more restricting than the sim world operating system because your dealing with real people, thus most non-consensual actions taken will be prevented. Remember we are assuming a direct brain connection with the operating system as it is.

anyway, the awesome thing about this is that as soon as SIAI completes their project, all of this should be possible, and probably will become reality.

checklist:
friendly AI
quatum computer
nanotechnology

[susmariosep]

Two suggestions.


There are words used in the OP I can't or don't know the meaning of.

First suggestion, please define the more difficult words.

Second suggestion, please tell me how they are going to manage their need to go to the bathroom for example.

Guys sending people to the moon attend to that detail and that's why the trip has become possible for people.

Of course I am not conversant with the words used, like nanites; and I am candid enough to ask the author of the OP for definitions of difficult words, as he had been candid to ask for help in locating a good beginners textbook in Latin.

A third suggestion, if I may, make your arrangement of sentences easier to sort out. I will give you some hints later.

Susma

[th3hegem0n]

Susma, If you were talking to me...

And, If you don't understand how people could manage going to the bathroom while (doing whatever)

Then, you obviously don't understand the real implications of nanotechnology.

If this is true, then I'll point out a quote:

"Within a short time ... anything that is possible within the laws of physics will be achievable." Daniel G. Clemmensen

The idea of the operating system of matter came from yudkowsky. I think at http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/

this couples the idea of Friendly Artificial Intelligence with the possibilities of nanotechnology.

[justinb]

Nanites are machines of any relatively small size that operate in these environments. Some nanites can move atoms around and create structures while others will be flowing around in your body repairing cells and keeping cancerous cells from multiplying... etc etc.

Nano literally means "one billionth". And in the case of nanotechnology, nanometer is the general measurement used. 1 billionth of a meter, where half a dozen atoms reside (depending on the atom of course). With nanotechnology, eventually everything that is possible (i.e. doesn't break the laws of physics) will be... well.... possible.

Nanotechnology on Wikipedia

A nano gear Note that the spheres are representations of atoms.

Foresight Institute

Another nanogear

[susmariosep]

Apologies for my ignorance.


Thanks, Justinb, for your explanation of nanites. Do I get it correctly, that they are extremely small mechanical devices that man can now fashion, of the size of say a molecule of water? Do we already have them or are they still in the speculative world?

Anyway, although I am not a scientist of nanotechnology specialization, I am a bit unsettled by this paragraph from you in the preceding message:

Nanites are machines of any relatively small size that operate in these environments. Some nanites can move atoms around and create structures while others will be flowing around in your body repairing cells and keeping cancerous cells from multiplying... etc etc.

"Some nanites can move atoms around and create structures..."

At the risk of exposing my ignorance further and making me absolutely a Dummkopf, the nanites that would move atoms around and create structures, may I ask how would they be supplied with energy to do their work?

Would that energy required for them to operate be also of an extremely minuscule scale like of the quantity also what we might describe as nanomical.

On the other hand, I understand that it takes tremendous energy to move atoms around, notwithstanding their extremely small size, specially when we want to move them from their natural physical location, that is atomic location.

And also again at the risk of exposing my astromical ignorance, wouldn't moving atoms around trigger some kind of an atomic conflagration like an atomic bomb exploding, i.e., setting off a nuclear device.


Thanks for your instructions. I salute you as my teacher. And I hold myself in sincere acknowledgment of my ignorance. As someone says:

The price of learning is humility. -- Pes Oir Amsus

Susma

[th3hegem0n]

More info about nanotechnology

http://www.singinst....o/nanotech.html

[susmariosep]

Here is a possible solution, from an ignoramus.


Further exposing my naive ignorance, I think that on my stock knowledge of numerical or quantitative distinction, the dilemma is not really a dilemma, meaning that Person X and Person X1 can live without any trouble, even though they are identical with identical possessions and relations.

It's like this: identical can mean similar or can mean the same numerical or quantitative entity.

Strictly speaking identical means the same numerical quantity, so that when we say Peter and simon are identical we mean they are both number 1, not one is number 1 and the other number 2.

In your narration, Person X is the original entity, and Person X1 is produced by nanites after the exemplar of Person X, so that we can say that one person namely X has first existed in time, then a second person, namely X1, so similar to X as to be improperly speaking identical to X -- because produced after the exemplar of X, is fabricated.

We can see therefore there is anteriority and posteriority, so that one comes first in time to the other which comes later in time. Then also one is the proto-type and the other is the imitation however perfect, again anteriority and posteriority on the basis of exemplary causality.

All these considerations point out to us that X and X1 are two numerically distinct entities, one is number one and the other is number two or any numbers we want to assign to them, but they are not and cannot be assigned the same number; because one comes after the other in time and on the basis of exemplary causality.

That is why there is no dilemma, they can both exist harmoniously.

Now coming to my concern with trips to the bathroom, there is no problem with them, because one can do his business without the other having to do it also.

Susma

[Infernity]

th3hegem0n,

Hm, well i guess the best way to solve the problem would be to create alternate universes for each person invovled.

Then what's the idea in creating the copy in the first place?!

emerson,

X1 needs to realise what a sweet deal he's got going for him. I'd love a chance to have one of me take the safe route, the car/home/family/normal9-5 route, and another version of me start a new life trying out something more daring.

Maybe that what you would do, if you now don't mind for both options then you won't argue your copy.
But Justin is talking about a situation whom non of them wants to give up their lives the way it was thus far...

I think there is no point in creating a copy, but for making sure that if you die- you still exist somewhat...
But it will be better to just make an upload to store somewhere and every day or after an important information received- update... (We are changing all the time). So once you die- people will create you according to the latest update.
You NOW, will not want you to be different. Even if we have no free will and the only differences between you and the copy now is the new life experience- you'll prefer yours- because that's all you know, and we naturally are afraid of the unknown. From the bad that may happen. So you'll always prefer yourself, and won't trust your copy after a while to replace you, because it's not the same.

If you wanna have a copy 'for fun', You have to understand you have two options- share (both of you agree on that since you decided that before copying and the copy will think exactly the same).
And by the way- if you consider the fact you may be the copy even before copying- it would be the smartest thing to do since than both of you will be sure in the same way (you must videotape every move!)
OR,
Be willing to give up for the sake of the copy before copying- as it'd do for you, and be able to do what you purpose the copy to do, so you'll be tie and understand each other totally...

Susma, you are forgetting that in the moment after finishing the copying process- the new life experience is SINGULAR. The X and supposedly X are turning X1 and X2, and as for our case, we refer to X1 as X and X2 as X1- to understand who is the original after all...

That means they will insist to have 'THEIR' lives...


Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[armrha]

Yes, but after all, X made it technically. Doesn't matter what X1 thinks, knows, etcetera...

No, X1 made it just as much as X. The act of copying effectively divides the possessions between them.. Just because one is the 'original' doesn't make him any more or less of a person then the 'copy', they're both the same patterns, scars, events, memories...

[armrha]

I think one of the best justifications would be if you had decided to leave for a new colony on a far-away planet.

With this technique, you could leave for a new colony on several thousand planets... all without trouble, as you can all leave with a duplicate of whatever you are supposed to have, and whatever you amass after the seperation would be undeniably. It'd also ensure your survival to an incredible degree, especially if any of the solar systems are very far apart. It should take years to even communicate with your 'siblings'.

[Infernity]

No, X1 made it just as much as X. The act of copying effectively divides the possessions between them.. Just because one is the 'original' doesn't make him any more or less of a person then the 'copy', they're both the same patterns, scars, events, memories...

Yes, armrha, you are correct.

I suppose that he is simply stupid by not thinking of it, or maybe just made a stupid mistake. However, he have to learn from that mistake, I bet they might try and kill each other [lol] .

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Infernity]

armrha,

I think one of the best justifications would be if you had decided to leave for a new colony on a far-away planet

But both won't leave... I mean why would they give up?
They will feel stupid for wanting to have a copy in the first place.

Gee Justin, when I analyse it you brought a case of a man who did not think twice- of course it will cause a mess [sweat] .

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[susmariosep]

Paging Justinb.


Dear Justinb, there is an assemblage of words in your OP I need to rephrase. Tell me if I go wrong in rephrasing, okay?

Lets say I replicate, using nanites, Person X to the molecular level.  Person X1 is created, a complete copy of Person X.  Now, a problem arises.  Person X had a girlfriend, parents, car, house, job.... a Life.  Person X1 wants Person X's life.  The only ethical way to solve this problem is to create all that Person X has for Person X, since Person X and X1 are selfish and wont share.  Now all of his friends and family members are recreated.  Althought the physical houses can be created because Person X1 wont like that the house is on a different street, etc.  The people created for Person X1 want to live a life too, they are also unwilling to share..... a problem arises.  The people involved in this dilemma will never be happy.  What do you fellow philosophers think about this problem?

Original: Althought the physical houses can be created because Person X1 wont like that the house is on a different street, etc.

Rephrased: Although two physical houses can be created, but because Person X1 won't like that his house be on a different street, etc., they two both occupy the same house.


My solution is very simple: first, to deny that there is a dilemma, second to work out an accommodation for all parties concerned from the experience of mankind in actual life situations.

See next post.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Remember, it is a crazy dilemma.


The dilemma presented by Justinb is as he puts it a crazy dilemma (Here is a crazy dilemma), whether we understand crazy as referring to the hypothetical situation he narrates or the way he arrives at the dilemma situation.

At first I thought that he was telling us that X and X1 are numerically identical, which I tried to show in an earlier posting from me that they are not -- as indeed they do not so appear in his narration.

Now I seem to understand that the dilemma is essentially a problem, as he puts it: "... a problem arises. The people involved in this dilemma will never be happy".

So it is not a strict dilemma where no solution can be arrived at -- more later on what I call a genuine dilemma.

How do they live together happily in the same house, all of them?

First, we know that it is possible to live happily together, because they are all humans therefore possessed of intelligence and common sense, by which they will arrive at the basic rule of common life, namely, to observe the maxim of "live and let live" for everyone.

You don't believe that? Then visit very congested urban areas in squatters slums where you have as much as twenty people living under the same roof on a floor area of 30 square meters and even less. In one case, a dog, a goat, and a horse also stay inside with them. And they all live happily together.

There is some logistics to be done though, so that they don't get mistaken on which is who. And as Justinb does by giving the original the designation of X and the copy the designation of X1; so they will all take care to carry similar designations on their clothing: on the one side -- X Xa Xb Xc etc., and on the other side -- X1 X1a X1b X1c etc.


Next post please for genuine and apparent dilemmas.

Susma

[justinb]

The problem is, that they both want the other's life because they feel that they both lived it. Lets assume that neither one know's who the copy is... and in that matter, no one does.

[susmariosep]

Hypothesis must follow facts --
genuine dilemmas and pseudo dilemmas


The dilemma described by Justinb is what I would call a very problematic situation but not a dilemma. The problems which are difficulties in the situation can be resolved by recourse to human experience in man's long history of living by himself and with others.

For me a genuine dilemma is one which cannot be resolved unless we change the structure in one or the other of the loggerheads clash between two systems, or a party in the clash leaves the dilemma situation.

In a human situation which is what genuine dilemmas are all about, consider the following challenge posed by His enemies to Jesus who teaches the resurrection of the dead.

According to Jewish law a brother must take in his childless widowed sister-in-law to wife. There were seven brothers who had to undertake this obligation, and they all died having taken the same woman to wife. At the resurrection of the dead whose wife will this woman be?

Jesus solved this dilemma by blaming his enemies for being overly concerned with earthly life customs, for in the resurrection of the dead there will be no longer marriage, all people will be like angels, no more then of husbands and wives.

See, Jesus denies the structure of one system, that of marriage in human society when the resurrection takes place. Of course this is all religious beliefs...


I will be back.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Hypothesis must follow facts --
genuine dilemmas and pseudo dilemmas.
(continued)


Consider this very common situation.

A man lost his wife and their infant daughter to marauding pirates. Twenty years later on a business visit to a city beyond the seas he met a female servant in the home of a merchant colleague. He asked and obtained this servant for a wife from the merchant. Back home after some years and having children from his new wife, his previous wife amazingly returned home.

The solution to this dilemma for the man is for his society to change the taboos against incest and incestuous simultaneous marriages, so that men would be similar to our fellow mammalians, the dogs, goats, and cats.

The other solution is for the wife to leave for good and let a functional situation alone, with all three sharing the secret in a matter of fact attitude.

That's why I consider the dilemma of Justinb not to be a genuine dilemma, however gratuitously bringing in contrary to facts scientific concepts and speculations of nanotechnology or even quantum theories.

Here is another pseudo dilemma: What will happen when an irresistible force crashes into an unmovable object?

This is a mere play on the material words, for the concepts and their combination are impossible.

Susma