From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 13:32:12 MST
Harvey writes
> Lee Corbin wrote,
> > I was astonished early last year to learn that some highly
> > intelligent and thoughtful list members will not teleport.
> > That is, on my "Seven Levels of Identity", they are at level
> > one or two.
> >
> > The seven levels are
> >
> > 1. Will travel by space warp, but won't permit disassembly of atoms.
> > 2. Will permit teleportation, but only if the same atoms are used.
> > 3. Will teleport, unless there is a delay.
> > 4. Will teleport, but finds backups to be useless.
> > 5. Finds backups acceptable, provided that they've had no run time.
> > 6. Anticipates future experiences of duplicates, but only one in
> > particular.
> > 7. Logically, but not necessarily emotionally, anticipates all
> > experiences of all duplicates past or future, near or far.
>
> None of these levels apply to me. Or at least, I don't have enough
> information to know which one applies.
Probably I should have made clear that the questions solely
concern *survival*. The question that one must ask himself
at each level is, "Would I survive if this happened to me."
> I object to the destructive copy operation.
From everything that you have written, I think that we agree
about this and for exactly the same reasons. Were "destructive-
copy" the only type of teleportation offered, I would attempt
to bribe the operator to not destroy my original. I would
pay a lot of money. I would encourage as much bribery as
possible for the sake of saving people's duplicates :-)
Here is a question for you: suppose that an unknown person
living in New York City absolutely needed a serum, and for
contrived reasons, only you could deliver it to him in time.
The only way that you can arrive in New York in time is to
teleport by a method that (sadly) must destroy the original
as the scan is made. Would you teleport?
A second question is, suppose that this sort of teleportation,
again for technical reasons, was the only kind of teleportation
discovered so far. Would you teleport across the pacific on
business, in the light of its cheapness and convenience?
> I do not object to a non-destructive copying. I do not object
> to the replacement of every atom in my body. I don't mind the
> replacement of every neuron and every tissue with an artificial
> replacement. As long as no instance of me is destroyed in the
> process, I would embrace it.
We agree, except that I'd sadly acquiesce in "destruction of the
original" scenarios, knowing that I had come "that close" to having
a bonafide duplicate.
> > My conclusion is that Harvey & Lee know different sets of people.
> It could be. I don't think that I have heard anybody on the Extropians list
> claim that we need to retain our same atoms to retain identity. I think
> this is a common misunderstanding that one side assumes for the other side.
> Does anybody claim this viewpoint for themselves?
All I can say is that I remember that sometime in the last two years
someone on this list claimed this point of view. It doesn't really
matter to me, since it's only a logical position. If everyone agrees
that the particular atoms are not a factor in these discussions, fine.
> I think we are wasting time discussing whether individual atoms are
> important until we actually find someone who holds this belief.
I totally agree. Let us agree not to resume discussion of whether
particular atoms matter until someone argues that it does.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 13:43:53 MST