X-Message-Number: 25544
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:41:56 -0600
From: Jeff Dee <>
Subject: Re: More of the Duplicates Paradox
References: <>

I wrote:

>> "I submit that the 'correct answer' to this is like the 'correct 
>> answer' to the question, 'when does a person's life begin?'. There 
>> are so many different criteria which can reasonably be applied that 
>> there is no single objectively 'correct' answer."

Richard wrote:

> That is false. As soon as you define 'life', the question DOES have 
> an objectively correct answer.


An answer which follows from one definition of 'life' will not compel anyone who
disagrees with that definition. Not everyone agrees to the same definition of 
'life', or (back on topic) 'self'. If you think you can get everyone to agree to
any specific definition, you're welcome to try.


Short of that, the resolution to the question, "of multiple exact duplicates, 
which of them (and how many of them) are to be viewed as the original 'self'" 
will be reached through some sort of legislated compromise. This is what 
happened on the abortion issue. It does appear to be the way these things 
actually play out.

> And if you cannot define the words 
> you are using, you have no business using them.

I can tell you what I mean by the words I use. Is that sufficient?

> In a similar fashion, once you define survive, as I have done 
> before on many occassions, the answer to the question DOES have an 
> objectively correct answer. 


I concede that your conclusions follow from your definitions. However, many 
people think 'survival' means something different than what you think it means. 
Maybe they just don't feel any obligation to defer to your authority on such 
maters ;-)

> When I go to sleep, if someone arranges my body so that I will see 
> the moon when I wake up, then when I wake up, I will see the moon.
> 
> If someone destroys me while I sleep, then creates two duplicates, 
> with one facing the moon and one facing the sun, my contention is 
> that I do not wake up up, and hence, that I see neither the moon 
> nor the sun, because I was destroyed. 
> 
> Mike et al insist I do wake up. They have failed to answer the 
> question, which one I see, the moon or the sun. Since if I do wake 
> up, I will see either the moon or the sun, and not both, the answer 
> to the question, 'What do I see?' has an answer, and it is either 
> 'moon' or 'sun'.
> 
> That is, if you grant that I wake up. I do not grant such a thing. 
> When I am destroyed, I am destroyed. End of story.


I understand your argument. I've already said that I think our culture, faced 
with this situation, will conclude that the physical original should be 
considered the actual original, distinct from the duplicates in a *legal* sense.
I've also said that I don't entirely agree with Mike.


Still, I don't think your specific definitions are likely to dictate our 
culture's course. Christian Fundamentalists use a definition of 'life' which 
tells them abortion is murder. You use a definition of 'self' which tells you 
that walking into a Star Trek transporter is suicide. I'm simply predicting 
that, ultimately, our culture is going to tell you the same thing it tells them:
if you don't like it, don't do it.

>> "From my perspective, the thing we're really trying to decide when 
>> we discuss this paradox is, 'who gets what rights'?"

> That's inane. We aren't discussing which person gets rights, where 
> discussing whether or not the inner subjective life of the original 
> continues in the duplicate, after 6 hours of divergence, when I 
> stab the original repeatedly with my life until he dies.


Why do you even care, if this is not ultimately about the rights of human beings
and their duplicates? Was it inane of me to assume that the  point of the 
discussion was something substantive, and not just semantic? If so, I apologize.

>> "Why should Mike have any *particular* interest in the fate of his 
>> original, since (given his claim that they are in fact identical), 
>> the death of either one is not a loss? I have two responses to 
>> this."

> No, we aren't discussing whether it constitutes a 'loss'. We are 
> discussing whether or not the survival of the duplicate is and 
> ought to be considered the survival of the original. Since Mike 
> Perry believes that it is, he should allow me to kill him in the 
> scenario I mentioned, as an academic exercise. But someone I don't 
> think I would be able to convince him, even with strong 
> painkillers, because Mike cannot possibly believe his own theory. 
> If I stabbed him and he died, he would not be coming back in his 
> duplicate. He would be dead.


I disagree with Mike, but I don't have any trouble accepting that he believes 
his own theory. I listed several ways in which I would value my duplicates. It 
sounds as if Mike just takes that view farther than I do. I can grasp that, even
if I don't agree with it.

>> "Most people seem to like the idea of doing or creating something 
>> in their lifetime that will continue after they're gone. Of course 
>> if I have the option, I'd rather not go in the first place. But 
>> given a choice between leaving behind a statue or a book or even an 
>> organization for others to remember me by, or leaving behind a 
>> duplicate to carry on my actual work, I'd definitely prefer the 
>> duplicate."

> I don't care what happens to the universe after I'm dead. Why 
> should I?


You're free to care, or not care, about anything you like. I'm saying that I 
doubt the view you're expressing will prevail, culturally or legally speaking, 
because most other people *do* care.


If you *really* don't care what happens after you're dead, then that shouldn't 
bother you either ;-)

> If some people think it is useful to have a duplicate running 
> around, that's their business. But they cannot insist they survive 
> in the duplicate if they die. That is plain silly.


But clearly they *can* insist that, and do. Deciding what to do in the face of 
differing opinions is a whole lot more productive than trying to verbally 
browbeat one another into all adopting the *same* opinion.

-Jeff Dee

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25544