On 7 October 2015 at 20:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 7:40 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 7 October 2015 at 18:16, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 7/10/2015 5:30 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 6 October 2015 at 16:54, Bruce Kellett < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It is possible that you might be able to make copies -- you certainly >>> can for AI. A copy means that information from the original was used to >>> construct the copy. >>> >>> Where I use "copy" you might use a different word. Let's define >> "doppelganger" as something which resembles the original arbitrarily >> closely but was not constructed using information from the original, while >> a "copy" is the same except constructed using information from the >> original. Using these definitions, are you saying that if you are replaced >> by a copy you will survive, whereas if you are replaced by a doppelganger >> you will not? >> >> I am saying, among other things, that you cannot establish that such >> 'doppelgangers' exist. Even if you had a purported doppelganger, you could >> not establish that is was identical to you. >> >> Theorizing on the basis of such doppelgangers is unsound. >> > > You could establish that the doppelganger exists and is identical as > easily as you could establish this about the copy, or about the original > compared to its earlier self. And even if you could not, you could theorise > about it even if you were a logical positivist. > > > That is simply false. You can establish the validity of the copy by a > process of technological audit, if you like that term. You know how you > gathered the data on which the copy is based, and the process by which that > data was instantiated in the copy. These processes are available for > testing and verification. > > You have none of these facilities for doppelgangers, especially if they > are outside your light cone. > If the doppelganger is at hand you can test it as easily as the copy. Do you accept that there is no functional difference between the doppelganger and the copy if you can test them? Do you accept that if there is no difference this was not caused by the testing but was there to begin with? > Logical positivists would label all such theorizing about unverifiable, > untestable, speculations empty, --even if they are too polite to call it > meaningless. > But that similar things are similar is not meaningless: it is true a priori. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
