Re: Is the fourth time is the charm?

From: m (
Date: Fri May 19 2000 - 22:22:37 MDT

--- John Clark <> wrote:
> m <> Wrote:


> I can form conclusions based on that. I conclude that the concept
> of
> "The Original" is trivial, dull, and utterly useless.

No it isn't. It will be ABSOLUTELY interesting to me (whatever my
orgins, including having stepped out a tranporter previously) at the
time when *I* (this instance of me, if you like) go to step into the
transporter. This instance of me would like to know that this
instance of me will step out of the other end.
 I don't mean to say that every instance isn't just as much of a
venerable human being, etc, just maybe not the same instance of me.

> >If you don't like this, I assume it is because you don't
> accept the
> >zygote as being "Harvey"
> Oh it might have a weak claim to the Harvey title but certainly
> nothing
> unique, others would have a stronger claim to the throne.

 That instance of Mr Newstrom will have a stronger claim when it's
developed into a conscious extropian, etc.

> > I assume this is because you (reasonably) value the sense of
> identity
> Bingo.
> >and don't believe that the zygote would be capable of this.
> Do you?

No, probably not. But that isn't so much the point of this
discussion, as I see it. It's more to do with the results of copying
on someone who *has* developed consciousness. The zygote issue only
arose as a reductio ad absurdum AFAIK.

> >BUT the said zygote would (if it were lucky) grow up to be a
> conscious Harvey.
> And the zygote might grow up and have conscious grandchildren, but
> they're
> not conscious now and neither is the zygote.
> >The continuity of the space-time line seems to me to be the
> only
> >reasonable standard.
> The space-time line of what? Yesterday's potatoes that's what,
> because that's
> what you're made of.

Come on, I've been around as some kind of conscious assemblage for
a fair number of years, irrespective of what I took into myself at
lunch yesterday.

> >The copies may well have consciousness and continiuty of
> *memories* with
> >the original they came from, and value their sense of
> identity/consciousness,
> Yes.
> >This still doesn't mean that they ARE the original.
> I don't want to be "The Original", I don't want to be like that
> stupid zygote.

The "copy" of the zygote will be another zygote, if your pattern
buffer is working! I assume you would want to be the actual you, when
you emerged from the process. (Ouch it's so hard to avoid
> >Yes but the pattern of the ensemble is reasonably constant,
> The difference between a zygote and the fellow writing this post
> seems
> rather large to me.

But the changes are gradual. There is continuity of experience even
as we change, no? This is what I trying to say with the space-time
line idea. There is continuity in time and spatial location in the
ordinary course of events. No instantaeous hops for macroscopic
entities anyway.
> >and the majority of atoms will remain at each stage for what
> > it's worth
> In the first place that depends on the arbitrary definition of how
> long
> "each stage" is, so the statement is not useful.


> In the second
> place it
> implies that there are special John Clark hydrogen atoms and
> special
> Harvey Newstrom hydrogen atoms which renders the statement silly.

Over a long enough time, of course that would be silly.
But the transportation process is assumed to be just about
instantaneous (a la Star Trek), or at least to involve some kind of
stasis so that scanning can take place? Ther would not be a wholesale

substitution of atoms in an instant.


Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:26 MDT