You say "Q_i (which is _your_ utility per unit measure for the observer i)."
 This is an oxymoron. How can observer i know or care what YOUR Q 
(Quality) is? How can this observer feel what it feels being you?. The 
only observer that matters in evaluating your Q is you as a 
self-observer. The sum is no sum at all:

U = M_o Q_o  where o = you as observer.


Wei Dai wrote:
> Jack Mallah wrote:
>> They might not, but I'm sure most would; maybe not exactly that U, but a 
>> lot closer to it.
> Can you explain why you believe that?
>> No.  In U = Sum_i M_i Q_i, you sum over all the i's, not just the ones 
>> that are similar to you.  Of course your Q_i (which is _your_ utility per 
>> unit measure for the observer i) might be highly peaked around those that 
>> are similar to you, but there's no need for a precise cutoff in 
>> similarity.  And it's even very likely that it will have even higher peaks 
>> around people that are not very much like you at all (these are the people 
>> that you would sacrifice yourself for).
>> By contrast, in your proposal for U, you do need a precise cutoff, for 
>> which there is no justification.
> Ok, I see what you're saying, and it is a good point. But most people 
> already have a personal identity that is sufficiently well-defined in the 
> current environment where mind copying is not possible, so in practice 
> deciding which i's to sum over isn't a serious problem (yet).
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to