Jump to content

Some funny things about agency and identity


Christopher

Recommended Posts

*In both these cases and time travel mechanics I think people are too dependant on "Observing is needed for it to be true".

I do not observe the generator producing the electricity to run my laptop right now (I rarely use the battery). Yet my Laptop runs, hence the power grid has net energy income, hence somewhere a generator is running right now.

Yep. There was a generator running right then. The you that existed when you posted this knew there was a generator running because why? From Observing that the laptop was running.

 

And the you that reads this? Knows that there is a generator running from Observing that the laptop is running.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Observing a palindromedary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm starting to wonder whether the communication problem is on my end or yours at this point.

 

Once again, in this hypothetical scenario, you are you right now, today, the same you that you are in actual reality. The only difference is that "someone else" has been killed and replaced with the current you, and the current you is going to be similarly replaced, but the current hypothetical you is unaware of these facts and believes that he/you has actually had the continuous existence that hypothetical current today you remembers (which is the same set of memories that actual real world today you has as you're reading this).

 

I am NOT, repeat NOT asking how the dead bodies perceive the situation. I am not asking how the replacements growing in the clone tank perceive the situation. I am asking how ALIVE hypothetical today you's perceptions of the situation--indeed, how the ACTUALITY of the situation--would differ from alive real today you's perceptions and actualities.

If I was replaced last night, then by definition I am not the same person as when I was not repalced last night.

I can not be the same person (continous existence) and a different person (repalced every night) at the same time. I can only be one of the two.

I might not know wheter I am one or the other, but I still am one or the other.

 

If you have two blocks of lead identical down to the quantum level next to one another, they are still two blocks of lead. If you damage one, the other will not magically copy that.

If you only ever showed me one of the blocks and then suddenly started showing me the other one isntead, you would be showing me a different block of lead.

The two blocks are similar. They might even be equivalent down to the quantum level. But they are not the same. If I damage one, the other one would still be unaffected.

I am a programmer, I have to know the difference between Identity and Equality. Those differences mater in programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're asserting that continuous existence is required for the continuity of identity, but haven't demonstrated it.

 

In stark contrast to your lead block example, in my hypothetical scenario, if someone teaches a fact to yesterday you that has been replaced, replacement today you will know the fact. By your lead block example, this would seem to argue FOR today you being the same person as replaced yesterday you. As you said yourself, if yesterday you and today you weren't the same person, then changes to one wouldn't affect the other. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're asserting that continuous existence is required for the continuity of identity, but haven't demonstrated it.

I'm pretty sure he was stating that there is a difference between identical and the same, in this case. That if you make a hundred identical copies of an original, none of them exist as the original, because only the original is the original, only copy 27 is copy 27, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure he was stating that there is a difference between identical and the same, in this case. That if you make a hundred identical copies of an original, none of them exist as the original, because only the original is the original, only copy 27 is copy 27, etc.

That is what I meant.

If I am original, I can not be any of the copies.

If I am copy 27, I can not be the original or any of the other copies.

I am only one of those 28+ very similar persons.

 

Let's take a usually permanent change that would be circumvented by the cloning. Say, loosing a leg or arm.

If I loose a arm, the clones would not magically loose thier arm too. They would have thier arms cut off after being cloned, to be similar to the original. They might even have the memory of me loosing my arm. But they sure as hell did not loose the arm the same way as me.

 

What if we have a different approach to cloning, like time cloning? If I was time cloned right here, right now. Would those two beings be to different but similar persons. Or be twice the same person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Regarding "replacing the body cell by cell with machinery" example:
Apparently that is a rather well known Paradox. The "Ship of Theseus".

In that example a ship was getting it's wooden planks replaced as they were getting old. And the question was: After you did it to the whole ship, is it still the same ship? What if you gathered all the planks after removing them and build a second ship from that? Would it be the same ship?

 

It is somewhat promently used in Fiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ship_of_Theseus_examples#Fiction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like Kaff Tagon 2 (I guess), is now realising the weight of having to live up to his predecessor:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2017-02-12

 

I think almost all of the Toughs, Tagon included, have died more than once.  All of the previous times they've been restored from the tip, so to speak; in this case, he was restored from a previous milestone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think almost all of the Toughs, Tagon included, have died more than once.  All of the previous times they've been restored from the tip, so to speak; in this case, he was restored from a previous milestone.  

That was using the old revival tech, wich required the head/default memory storage to stay mostly intact. It required quickly putting the head into a cryokit. Then regrowing the body.

 

With the 2 following comics, I see only a few people that can relate:

Schlock: he was the first to do that. But then again he is likely not the right person for existential questions.

Enesby: He was restored with scrambelled speech.

The Ein-Afa might have experience with that. They used the tech originally, after all. There should be somebody in there wich has gone through the same thing as Tagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was using the old revival tech, wich required the head/default memory storage to stay mostly intact. It required quickly putting the head into a cryokit. Then regrowing the body.

 

With the 2 following comics, I see only a few people that can relate:

Schlock: he was the first to do that. But then again he is likely not the right person for existential questions.

Enesby: He was restored with scrambelled speech.

The Ein-Afa might have experience with that. They used the tech originally, after all. There should be somebody in there wich has gone through the same thing as Tagon.

 

Sure.  I think that we're running into different definitions of identity, and in the comic they may be running into different definitions of revival.  For revival, they've had head-in-magic-cryokit (effectively everyone, perhaps except for Karl Tagon), restoration from backup (Murtaugh, Ebby, Kaff Tagon), and a bit of both (Schlock), other weirdness (AI gestalts, the UNS assassin that used to move from body to body).  And in the comic they've had to come up with multiple definitions of death: brain intact, brain not intact with instant backup, brain not intact with previous backup.  

 

For questions of identity, there's quantum identity (teleportation of a photon by moving its quantum information to another -- we can extend Star Trek's transporter beams to this, if we want), personal continuity of identity (however you want to define that -- "I" am me), Ship of Theseus style continuity of identity (but what happens to the old parts that are reassembled?), legal identity, something I haven't thought of.  

 

For day-to-day purposes, and in real life, we only have to deal with a small subset of that.  For instance, we've had living people declared legally dead through bureaucratic mishap.  At various times throughout human history, medical death has been: when a person stops breathing; when a person's heart stops; when a person's brain dies and can't be returned to a fully functioning state; when any of the above happen, but it is considered a result of "old age".  There are people alive and well today who have been through both of the first two forms of death.  There are people who have been effectively brain dead (either having "died" on the operating table, or having drowned in icy water) but have returned to function.  There are people who have been in a coma but have been brought out of it.  There are people who have been through electroshock therapy who feel like their old self is dead, even though they have continuity of memory.  

 

We've got a lot to work with here, and this is only page 2 of the thread.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure.  I think that we're running into different definitions of identity, and in the comic they may be running into different definitions of revival.  For revival, they've had head-in-magic-cryokit (effectively everyone, perhaps except for Karl Tagon), restoration from backup (Murtaugh, Ebby, Kaff Tagon), and a bit of both (Schlock), other weirdness (AI gestalts, the UNS assassin that used to move from body to body).  And in the comic they've had to come up with multiple definitions of death: brain intact, brain not intact with instant backup, brain not intact with previous backup. 

I think the Assasin was actually the clearest cut case for seperate Identity. I mean it literally was one of them betraying the other. Without Female!Kowalski, Kowalski Prime would never have been aprehended. And the difference was just about a Ego-Trimming (before the Upload) and a few hours of experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I think he means that if Tagon does not want it anymore, the next Statue will be of him.

This IS Schlock we're talking about.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says, so the next statue might be of Tagon because Tagon doesn't want it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This IS Schlock we're talking about.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says, so the next statue might be of Tagon because Tagon doesn't want it?

It is. So that idea had crossed my mind as well. But I think he respects Tagon (both gone and present) too much to ever eat his Statue. Maybe if it was Ovalwik coated, but who would do that?

 

In turn it would be totally in line with him to do something incredibly stupid to "save the day" - if it actualy needs saving then or not - to earn his 3rd life and a statue for Nr. 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now Kaff and Schlock are making jokes about dying stupidly and being reborn:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2017-04-14

schlock20170414.jpg?v=1491745007078

 

 

It is. So that idea had crossed my mind as well. But I think he respects Tagon (both gone and present) too much to ever eat his Statue. Maybe if it was Ovalwik coated, but who would do that?

 

In turn it would be totally in line with him to do something incredibly stupid to "save the day" - if it actualy needs saving then or not - to earn his 3rd life and a statue for Nr. 2.

It may be in character for Schlock to want a statue of himself, but it doesn't fit the conversation. Tagon just said "If we die the next version of me will remove that memorial." In that context, "Dibs on the statue" could mean a lot of things. It could mean "I want to eat the statue" or "I want to be the one that gets to destroy that statue" or "I want to take the statue and keep it in my quarters." I think it's a stretch to read it as "I want a statue of myself put up that's like the one of you that you want taken down."

 

edit: Or so someone thought at 1340 hrs. That was someone else almost an hour ago and now I think it may not be so much of a stretch. But it looks like a throwaway line we never will know the meaning of.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suspects that there can be many other interpretations we haven't even thought of yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

edit: Or so someone thought at 1340 hrs. That was someone else almost an hour ago and now I think it may not be so much of a stretch. But it looks like a throwaway line we never will know the meaning of.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suspects that there can be many other interpretations we haven't even thought of yet

Even throwaway lines often serve a purpose in Schlock Mercenary. Often a plotpoint/Eureka moment later on.

 

Like back in 2013, where we got reminded of Enesby's "Boy Band" past repeatedly:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2013-01-26

 

Maybe it will be Schlock to convince the Matroshka Brain to stop being in hiding? Simply based on him having died once already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Of course not. After all, I share 100% of my memories with myself*. So by definition he must be somebody other then me, because he does not have the same access/same memories.

 

And as I said, those 42 minutes were kind of big for Tagon. As a lot of them was spend in combat, a major factor of Captain Tagons life.

 

 

*Within usual limits of biological memory access.

 

Yes, when hitting post on this post I am not the same person I was when I decided to reply. However the difference is marginally entirely. Nothing remotely similar to "sacrificing yourself to save hundreds of lives".

 

Now you are mixing up the clone and original viewpoint.

The continuity flaw applies only to the original. It is still dead as a doornail. If there is something like a soul, that soul went on. It's decision maters absolute for itself. This is not like "death in Dragonball".

 

What Kaff Tagon 2 has to deal with is being the clone of that relationship. Basically a sort of Son. I likened it to Kelvin timeline Kirk and his Father. With Tagon 1 being the Father, Tagon 2 being the Kirk.

If there is something like a soul the soul goes on... Why?

Before you answer consider the 5 skandhas of Budhism were a person is  a body (material form), feelings , perception (knowledge), the mind, and the spirit all of which fly apart when one dies but the soul reincarnates by combining with new forms.  Supposedly two different people or even more are one entity.

 

Not arguing the propriety of Christian or Buddhist views of the soul, merely pointing out we don't rightly know.  If we make a clone to carryon with our knowledge after we die whose to say it does not inherit our soul?  Then again who's to say it does? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One, in many cultures, the soul is never, ever, defined as one's consciousness, and in most, it could, at best, be defined as just a piece of it.

 

That's talking about cultures that have some definition of what a soul is.

 

Further, in many, memories are not tied to the soul at all.

 

Given that, the clone who receives the soul will have the memories, and, in the now, experience the world as a creature with a soul(assuming the original is dead), but it's memories, being copies and not having that soul, IF ONE ACCEPTS THE SOUL MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO THIS WHOLE TOPIC, are not the same as the original, who did have a soul when experiencing those memories, and so, they are by definition still different, even if the same soul now inhabits the body as the last one.

 

Further, if one takes 'soul' to be the whole consciousness of the being, the clone need never be given the experiences in the first place, nor be animated until needed. And, at that point, the soul flitting in is somehow completely robbing the clone of agency.

 

Now, no Eastern tradition posits the soul as being the entirety of consciousness of the being, but that still leaves a lot of room for variation in their ideas of what entails a spirit or soul. Christianity is terribly vague about what the soul is in that view, so any speculation would require defining which idea of the soul we're dealing with, though in any case, that being inhabiting the body of a clone, soulless or otherwise, is basically a parasite. At worst, like a demon, at best, Firestorm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is something like a soul the soul goes on... Why?

Before you answer consider the 5 skandhas of Budhism were a person is  a body (material form), feelings , perception (knowledge), the mind, and the spirit all of which fly apart when one dies but the soul reincarnates by combining with new forms.  Supposedly two different people or even more are one entity.

 

Not arguing the propriety of Christian or Buddhist views of the soul, merely pointing out we don't rightly know.  If we make a clone to carryon with our knowledge after we die whose to say it does not inherit our soul?  Then again who's to say it does? 

Then what if we do not die?

Is the soul now shared between both instances?

What about twins, wich a natural clones?

All religions that preach of soul and afterlife, preach of agency to make certain the soul get's there/deny yourself access. Shared souls and inhereted souls would violate that rule.

 

I mean I know there is this wierd sect that wants to clone Hitler, then put the clone on trial for Hitlers missdeeds. But not even atheists consider that a fair trial. And we do not even believe in a soul to begin with, much less one that you could inherit.

I mean we german used to have Sippenhaft in ancient (around Christ birth) to medieval times. But we got rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...