/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6643118
While I agree with most of what you've said, just because it's a copy doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it as YOU also.

There are a few things one should consider that make this argument more fun.

1) What is the defining attributes you use to determining YOU? If YOU exist as a concrete concept there should be, in theory, some encoding of your attributes that a oracle machine would decide. It can't be your foot or arm else amputation would destroy your YOUNESS. An oracle should still be able to recognize you after you cut your finger off.
2) One might conclude that one's physical brain is the defining attribute for YOU. Clearly we need to work in dynamics and time dependence because we don't want to be classified by the oracle machine as a new person every increment of time.

The attribute defining YOU is physical brain and its evolution? Replacing each neuron with an electrical counterpart and simply the process of cell replication/replacement would destroy that defining attribute - not a robust definition of YOU.
3) So perhaps the defining attribute of you is the abstract brain configuration (which an arbitrary system can produce) and its evolution? If this is the case whats the need to use location as a defining attribute?

Consider creating a deterministic world simulation with some set initial conditions and suppose creating a human like AI (also deterministic, again with certain initial conditions). We can put the AI in the simulated world and run it on two computers with identical initial conditions. Although the computers are running in different locations the AI will have identical brain states and identical evolution of them - they are the same thing in terms of YOUNESS (even though we can distinguish them). What I'm saying is one should define YOU as "the procedure not the instance of it".