Lee Corbin wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote
> > I give permission to emulate me, then terminate the
> > emulation, so long as at all times there is still one
> > copy of me that has been under the ultimate and direct
> > control of itself (not an emulation of itself) from
> > now until the emulation/termination.
>
> Doesn't this mean that you might terminate soon?
> (Hopefully, your answer is "No" and that you can
> say that you have already signed up for cryonic
> suspension!)
No, and working on freeing up the funds for cryo. (Probably will be
for a while: I am both richer and poorer than most, depending on how
one measures available funds.)
> Eliezer's point applies to you: what if your physical
> body must now be destoryed in order to give 10^9 versions
> of yourself---some of whom are exactly isomorphic to you
> at this moment---the resources they require?
Unlikely to come up in reality, at least any time soon. Current copy
can obtain resources to spawn an additional 10^9, once how to do mass
production spawning has been figured out (which, unfortunately, it
hasn't yet). Using current resources to run more copies is likely to,
instead, be overridden by using current resources to enhance current
copy, at least for the entity typing these words or any near-term
version thereof. This may be considered sociopathic relative to the
copies that would otherwise have been created, but that's what exists
here at the moment...
> If you
> understand the principle that "duplicates are self",
> you won't have any trouble with this. If you don't,
> then "you" simply will be missing out on a lot!
Slightly different take: duplicates *were* self at the moment of
branching, but from that moment on, each duplicate is its own
individual. After the run starts, each duplicate no longer views the
other duplicates, with different running histories and largely
identical but not completely so decision matricies, as "self". Each
instance will want its own, relatively recent, backup if near term
termination is a serious threat, so that not too much of "self" is
lost. (Note that a suspended "self" at prior point is still considered
"self", but a simultaneously and independently running "self" is
considered someone else. Possible solution: allow these "selves" to
share experiences by some high fidelity link, so they can merge
themselves back into one identity.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:42 MDT