|
Proteus Jones posted:Oh, we are also certainly living in a simulation. Yes, except for the “we” part. I’m afraid the creators of this simulation only had enough computing power to simulate one mind and its associated inputs. One of you is real (naturally you know who you are), everyone else is a relatively simple process (in Zaphod’s case, extremely simple) providing you the illusion of interaction with other intelligences. I’ve always thought other people don’t treat solipsism seriously enough as a philosophy. Syzygy Stardust fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Feb 14, 2018 |
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Tiggum posted:Again I have to ask what you think death is, if not ceasing to exist? If souls don't exist (which you say you accept) then what is death? As I already defined, its the end of a self-sustaining process. The end of homeostasis of consciousness. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A SOUL. Go read GEB or I am a strange loop. This doesn't require souls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Because "consciousness" is just your latest word for "soul". No, there's something else you're just unwilling to even think about it so you don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:NO IT IS NOT. A soul is something outside of this universe. I'm not talking about anything outside of this universe. This is a really apt analogy against the point you're making because both have the same data so you don't really care if you lose one of them, and if you're altering them differently how annoyed you get with losing one of them increases the more (and more important) changes you make that aren't duplicated to the other - they become separate documents based on the same thing. General Battuta's point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
I mean I'd ignore Zaphod but then each page would only have like 2 posts on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Why? Can you articulate why an entity dies in your proposed scenario of "lie down, get scanned, vaporize, scan implanted in new body"? Do not use the circular 'because they die'; define death. It cannot be because of the loss of bulk matter, because all matter of the same type is equivalent. One carbon molecule is as good as another. What, then, is being lost when the body is vaporized? What has died? Answer this question and you can prove your point; but it cannot be answered affirmatively, because nothing is being lost. You only view this from a completely nihilistic standpoint. In your example humans, actually self-aware living beings, are nothing but carbon&water and some data. So self-awareness and consciousness are non-factors ? From my experience every living being and especially those with higher brain functions and a concept of self, prefer to be alive, rather than dead. Death is the end of the line of one's existence. So in my example a clone gets activated and the original is shut down. And as you correctly state, from an entirely material point of view nothing is lost, since the replacement is a perfect 1:1 copy. But the whole point is, what about the original ? That person, as a living being, has just lost his life. Why would a self-aware living being, agree to such a trade ? One life ending, so that another, identical life (plus a wallet full of cash as in the early example) can begin, is still a lovely bargain for the original. General Battuta posted:Why? If you think this, you must be terrified of your own poop, and while I wouldn't put it past goons, I genuinely don't believe you look at your own discarded substrate and weep in loss that you are flushing your true self down a toilet. I thought we had an exchange of our different definitions of what immortality or existencemeans here. But now you are just being silly. So to you consciousness and self-awareness are the same as a turd....  ....although this helps me understand your approach.
Hammerstein fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
No idea why people are coming into this thread to complain about philosophy discussion, it's exactly the kind of discussion the show's technology facilitates having.Zaphod42 posted:NO IT IS NOT. A soul is something outside of this universe. I'm not talking about anything outside of this universe. If I have a pirated copy of Kanye West's new album on one USB stick ad then copy it to another, it would functionally make no difference to you which USB stick I gave you, either way you would get to listen to Kanye's album. Maybe if one USB stick was red and the other was blue you might want the red one more?? But this would be an arbitrary distinction. If I put both USB sticks on the ground and told you that you could take one with you if you smashed the other up with a hammer, you wouldn't worry about accidentally losing Kanye's album to the ether. In fact you probably wouldn't worry about this decision at all, or to the extent that you did, you would make your choice based on an arbitrary factor like which USB stick color you liked more (or which one came out ahead in rock-paper-scissors).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:Another question maybe the book readers have an answer to: I mean if for no other reason, reproduction. That kind of instinct is going to take more than hundreds of years to extinguish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:You only view this from a completely nihilistic standpoint. In your example humans, actually self-aware living beings, are nothing but carbon&water and some data. So self-awareness and consciousness are non-factors ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:You only view this from a completely nihilistic standpoint. In your example humans, actually self-aware living beings, are nothing but carbon&water and some data. So self-awareness and consciousness are non-factors ? The implicit detail is that the original is instantly and painlessly euthanised. You'd never know you were dead, since the only you that's around is the you on the other end of the process. I imagine if teleportation/cloning involved the original being imprisoned and horribly tortured to death then people might be less enthusiastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:You only view this from a completely nihilistic standpoint. In your example humans, actually self-aware living beings, are nothing but carbon&water and some data. So self-awareness and consciousness are non-factors ? Self awareness and consciousness are the product of computations performed by matter. This is not nihilistic. It is objective fact. quote:From my experience every living being and especially those with higher brain functions and a concept of self, prefer to be alive, rather than dead. Death is the end of the line of one's existence. So in my example a clone gets activated and the original is shut down. And as you correctly state, from an entirely material point of view nothing is lost, since the replacement is a perfect 1:1 copy. There is no 'original'. We are patterns of information encoded in a substrate. As those patterns change, so do we. When those patterns bleed their Shannon information into the surrounding environment, we die. Guess what your body would look like if we removed the Shannon information? Several piles of elements in a lot of water and stinky symbiotic bacteria. Goo. poo poo. Poop. That's what you are without the information encoded in you. And a cast-off body is no different. The thought experiment you created was: Would you go into a lab, sit down, go unconscious, have your brain scanned, your body euthanized, and a new body activated with your brain scan encoded in it? There is only one answer. Assuming the equipment is reliable and high-fidelity, of course anyone rational would. You do the exact same thing every single night. You trust a physical structure of matter to recreate your consciousness when you wake up. Since matter cannot be 'signed' to a particular entity, only the pattern of the matter is important. The pattern has been retained. There is no danger. The 'original' (who does not exist) has no more died than your poo poo just died in the toilet. It is cast-off substrate, used matter, no longer patterned into part of you. It would probably be very sentimental to look at it and say 'what a good body, it brought me so far.' But it should not trouble you; and in time you would not be any more sentimental over your corpse than you would be wistful over a big ol' stinky' ol turd. Where I think Zaphod keeps getting turned around is he's imagining the same thought experiment, but the meat fork isn't euthanized, it wakes up and diverges, and then it doesn't want to die any more because there's nowhere for its pattern to go now - it has no continuation into the future. Zaphod is pleading that meat fork's case after it's diverged (and then stumbling and saying the meat fork still has a case if it hasn't diverged.) If that were the case, then let that poor corpse live, don't flush it. Zaphod keeps begging for people to read what's being said, but then he fumbles around with 'it's not about identity, it's about...consciousness!' as if those were different things. Zaphod and friend: tell me where the wizard kills you, you existentially constipated holo-Huguenots! You're running from the question, because you know it'll force you to admit that you believe certain atoms 'belong' to your consciousness and are necessary for its function, but you know that's not true! (By the way, if you've got two USB sticks containing identical data, and you ask them 'Who's the real USB stick and who's the copy?' they'll both say I'M THE REAL ONE! And they're both right.) Also, Zaphod, consider putting all your thoughts into one post, posting it, and letting people respond before you edit it. You don't need 6 posts in a row. Just gather everything together, then press the 'submit' button.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:If I have a pirated copy of Kanye West's new album on one USB stick ad then copy it to another, it would functionally make no difference to you which USB stick I gave you, either way you would get to listen to Kanye's album. It would functionally make no difference, but that's not what we're talking about. Of course they're in the same state, I already said that. The point is though you still have 2 separate USB sticks. Each one is an individual, complete copy of the data. Deleting one means the other still exists. If they're the same thing, that can't be true. It MUST be the case that two things can have the same internal information or state while still being separate entities! Of course you can listen to Kanye on either Stick, and either Takashi has the memories of Takashi. THAT WAS NEVER IN QUESTION. Why do you guys keep focusing on that and ignoring what we're actually trying to ask you? That isn't the problem! But that not being a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. You're just overlooking it. General Battuta posted:Where I think Zaphod keeps getting turned around is he's imagining the same thought experiment, but the meat fork isn't euthanized, it wakes up and diverges, and then it doesn't want to die any more because there's nowhere for its pattern to go now - it has no continuation into the future. Zaphod is pleading that meat fork's case after it's diverged (and then stumbling and saying the meat fork still has a case if it hasn't diverged.) If that were the case, then let that poor corpse live, don't flush it. Zaphod keeps begging for people to read what's being said, but then he fumbles around with 'it's not about identity, it's about...consciousness!' as if those were different things. God drat you're condescending. The point is that if you could leave the meat fork un-euthanized, then that means when you euthanize the meat-fork you're killing someone. If not euthanizing the meat-fork means another person exists, ending that thing's life means you've killed someone; whether or not a copy exists! You said before that anywhere your state or pattern was reproduced would be "you", and that you don't die as a result. But then how are forks even possible? General Battuta posted:Forking only makes sense if you understand that scans are as valid a method of causal propagation as slouching around in a meatsack. Of course information can be duplicated - that's how the human mind works, by recording information in a physical state. If you don't get that fact, you think one of the double-sleeved Taks is a 'copy' and one is an 'original'. If you understand how forks work, you realize both are genuinely Tak, the OG Real Me born on Harlan's World. Then what makes the forks suddenly no longer casually connected? Where does that happen? Where do you draw the line? I never said that 'copy' Tak was different than 'original' Tak, you have got to be purposely ignoring things I type and intentionally misunderstanding me so you can maintain that you're right in order to think this. I've gone way way way out of my way to explicitly state this like 7 times. The 'copy' tak is just as real. He has all the same memories. Yep. But that doesn't mean that killing 'original' Tak means that nobody dies. That version dies. The other version lives. A version lives on, but that doesn't mean no death takes place. I've said this several times and you keep ignoring it. General Battuta posted:There is no difference between a copy and a transfer. Copying is moving. And I want to be clear; everybody in the thread disagrees with this, right? Whatever we believe we can all agree that Battuta is crazy about this one. And Battuta, I edited all my posts together into one mega-post just for you, because you get so upset about edits. But I never once went back and removed or altered anything I said, I only tacked on extra statements, so pretending like that means you can't possibly respond to me and can just ignore the things I say that prove you're wrong is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:And I want to be clear; everybody in the thread disagrees with this, right? Whatever we believe we can all agree that Battuta is crazy about this one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
The difference is someone is still left there. In the end of SOMA even though one version lives happily ever after another will suffer forever. One Takashi gets to return to life, another stays on ice forever. Thats why a copy isn't a transfer. And to double-sleeve, you have to copy, because one mind cannot simultaneously control two bodies. Battuta, do you think double sleeve clones would be able to talk to themselves telepathically? You maintain that one immutable ur-consciousness exists wherever that state exists. But that doesn't make sense. Two takeshis, with two bodies, with two minds, with separate thoughts, that share only memories. That means a copy was made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Not sure what the functional difference between copying something into a new place and deleting the "original" is compared to "transferring" it, to be honest. Zaphod42 posted:The difference is someone is still left there Zaphod42 posted:Battuta, do you think double sleeve clones would be able to talk to themselves telepathically? You maintain that one immutable ur-consciousness exists wherever that state exists. But that doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I can't find the post - in the book, is Head in the Clouds specifically geared towards the snuff it is in the series, or is it just a fancy brothel? The way its set up in the series seems to be someone going to great effort to be both cheap and comically evil. I'm sure there'd be a more efficient way to run a "come-kill-a-sex-worker" joint, especially with all the mind-swapping tech at the centre of the series.Zaphod42 posted:The difference is someone is still left there. My take is that the copy procedure in SOMA (from what is explained in Wikipedia) is different to the technology in AC. The fact that it they only fork a mind in SOMA is the driver of the existential horror. In AC, the data stored in the stacks and the back up is the self - there is no-one "left there" - the data is always the "you" that is existing now. And (to me) this is the issue with double sleeving, in the series, at least - one mind wasn't meant to control two bodies, at least not without loving up the mind attempting to do it, which was part of why Dimi was in the mental state he was. Even though the average human in AC wouldn't believe in the existence of a soul, but there does seem to be a hang-up about the (for want of a better word) purity of the self. It felt like that's what bothered Bancroft the most, and he couldn't accept that he'd disfigure his own existence like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Zaphod, you causally deluded crypto-dualist! You’re inventing things to disagree with so your fork-family won’t be shamed by your concession. I’ll spare you a raw dump of links to every time I’ve explained this before and say, again: everywhere the Shannon information of your consciousness is executed, so is your consciousness. That means, count with me, that if there are two (2), hold up one and one fingers, instances of your entropy being executed, there are two (count the eyes on your face) consciousnesses. Not one impossible ubersoul. Two. Capiche? While we’re in remedial existence land, you want to know what makes two consciousness “sudddenly no longer causally connected”. You informatically illiterate peon! Do you know what cause and effect are? If a cause in one mind can produce an effect in the other, they are causally connected. An example would be your mind state right now and your mind state in one second: causation. Two disconnected mindstates would be a meat brain and its digital copy after you shut off the scanner. Now for the pinnacle of your philosophical pratfallls! “If we euthanize the meat body, we’ve killed someone! Don’t you see? Forks can’t occur without one fork eventually dying!” Oh woebegone worrier, do you sit paralyzed on your couch, thinking “If I get up to piss, I have willfully destroyed all the brainstates which would develop if I sat here! I have willfully murdered the being who could go on existing continuously, in favor of a fork who hasn’t wet his pants?” It’s the exact same scenario! Choosing to do something isn’t murdering all the viable selves who might have developed! Euthanizing discarded substrate which might get up and walk off is as much “murder of a potential life” as our decision to leave the room is murder of your brainstate which develops by staying in that room. No, you cry, no, that’s bullshit! Copying your entropy into a new substrate and then forcefully destroying another viable copy is death, it’s deletion, it’s not the same as ordinary life where the brain’s full state always influences its next state! You’re comparing splitting a river and damming one fork to walking down a riverbank and saying it’s a new river five feet later! You insist the meat fork has died. But you can’t defeat that loving wizard! You just can’t! He comes in and with a wave of his wand he replaces every atom in your body with a new identical one. Then he assembles the old atoms into a perfect replica of your corpse...with no brain activity. Tell me, o feckless falsifier of fact! Have you been murdered? Has a fork been killed, denied the chance to develop naturally by wizard’s cruel injuncton? Or do you just say “Whoa. Weird.” at the lifeless facsimile, the you-shaped castoff, sprawled there on your couch? Confess! e: gently caress autocorrect and happy Valentine’s Day <3 General Battuta fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Battuta do you at least agree with him that in the case of SOMA someone drowns, in the case of two Kovacs' someone gets deleted, in the case of Bancroft a Laurens Bancroft died from a bullet (or plasma ray or w/e) to the head? I think if you could straightforwardly admit this you guys would settle a lot of disagreements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:My take is that the copy procedure in SOMA (from what is explained in Wikipedia) is different to the technology in AC. The fact that it they only fork a mind in SOMA is the driver of the existential horror. In AC, the data stored in the stacks and the back up is the self - there is no-one "left there" - the data is always the "you" that is existing now. And (to me) this is the issue with double sleeving, in the series, at least - one mind wasn't meant to control two bodies, at least not without loving up the mind attempting to do it, which was part of why Dimi was in the mental state he was. Even though the average human in AC wouldn't believe in the existence of a soul, but there does seem to be a hang-up about the (for want of a better word) purity of the self. It felt like that's what bothered Bancroft the most, and he couldn't accept that he'd disfigure his own existence like that. This is a valid view for needlecasting, like I said before, we don't know exactly how its supposed to work to the lowest level detail. But for double-sleeving or back-ups like Bancroft had, we know it can't be a transfer because something still is alive after. Bancroft keeps living, then dies, then the backup is spun up. The backup was thus a copy. It couldn't have been a transfer or else Bancroft's body would go brain-dead as soon as the backup was complete. If you think the double-sleeving does cause one mind to control two bodies that does change things, but then does that mean that double-sleeves can communicate telepathically like I was saying? If so, you'd think CTAC would be full of double-sleeve agents. gently caress, all of CTAC could just be one guy with like 10,000 backups that all work together as a hive mind. (Which is a really cool sci-fi concept but not how I see AC being) Phobeste posted:This is a really apt analogy against the point you're making because both have the same data so you don't really care if you lose one of them, and if you're altering them differently how annoyed you get with losing one of them increases the more (and more important) changes you make that aren't duplicated to the other - they become separate documents based on the same thing. General Battuta's point. You don't care... if they're only data. If they're alive beings that experience suffering and pain, then that changes everything doesn't it? We don't care if a USB stick is destroyed; we do care if humans are destroyed. The immoral part of killing people isn't just that information is lost. Nor is it just suffering. Lots of people in this thread are basically arguing that if you euthanize someone without any pain, its totally fine to do to random people against their will, because they don't suffer and stop existing so there's nobody to be "upset" about being dead. And that's not TOTALLY crazy, I can see where you're coming from... but most people identify as the self, the consciousness, not the idea of the identity of the self. Who cares if some "zaphod" lives on, I only care if ME, this particular instance lives on. I don't want to stop being. I want to keep driving cars and loving women and drinking alcohol; can't do that if I'm dead. Even if a copy is out loving girls and drinking beer, if I'm not the one doing it, I don't care. In fact, if the ME instance is dead, then who cares if there's another zaphod? That's like some immortal monument, which is just egotistical and doesn't change anything. The Ninth Layer posted:No idea why people are coming into this thread to complain about philosophy discussion, it's exactly the kind of discussion the show's technology facilitates having. Goons gonna goon, but other than Battuta being so condescending and sure of himself this is a really fun conversation. Still, we've basically diverged into "ITT - argue about the meaning of life" which is a bit of a derail. Its both on topic because of the show but slightly off topic because its not the show itself. I can understand some people being upset by that. The Ninth Layer posted:If I have a pirated copy of Kanye West's new album on one USB stick ad then copy it to another, it would functionally make no difference to you which USB stick I gave you, either way you would get to listen to Kanye's album. So like I was saying above, this is true but only because USB sticks aren't alive, they don't experience anything. Which, it seems to me that Battuta is arguing that humans aren't even alive. So if we're just USB sticks, you're right! But it sure seems like there's more going on here. USB sticks don't feel pain, they don't complain when they're hurt. Humans do. USB sticks don't worry about dying, humans do. If you put both usb sticks on the ground and told me I could take one with me if I smashed the other up, I wouldn't worry because all I care about is the data. But with a person you care about more than just that person's information state. You don't want your loved ones to die, period. You don't want them to suffer, period. Regardless of if you save all that information or not. Consider this: If I could replace you with a robot that acts exactly like you in every way, but isn't you and is instead a robot, and then I kill you painlessly, would you be totally fine with doing that right now? Battuta would you do that? Why not? Because you don't want to die? General Battuta posted:I’ll spare you a raw dump of links to every time I’ve explained this before You've declared it before. Declaring it over and over only works for opinions. It doesn't work for facts. You have yet to remotely establish this as true fact. You just say "IT IS FACT, CAUSALLY CLOSED UNIVERSE, SHANNON ENTROPY" and never even try to prove it. General Battuta posted:Zaphod, you causally deluded crypto-dualist! Well, everybody else in this thread is pretty reasonable and you're clearly an insane person. I was going to still talk it through with you because its an interesting subject, but when you're literally posting stupid abusive poo poo like this every comment, there's no point. Have fun feeling smug Battuta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Battuta do you at least agree with him that in the case of SOMA someone drowns, in the case of two Kovacs' someone gets deleted, in the case of Bancroft a Laurens Bancroft died from a bullet (or plasma ray or w/e) to the head? Yes, thankyou. Please. This is exactly what I'm trying to get out of him. But I'm pretty sure Battuta does not agree with this. Which means he disagrees with every single other goon in this thread. We're all on the same page, but he thinks shannon entropy means death doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I can't find the post - in the book, is Head in the Clouds specifically geared towards the snuff it is in the series, or is it just a fancy brothel? The way its set up in the series seems to be someone going to great effort to be both cheap and comically evil. I'm sure there'd be a more efficient way to run a "come-kill-a-sex-worker" joint, especially with all the mind-swapping tech at the centre of the series. Your take on it being the series' bullshit is correct. Head in the Clouds will provide literally any fantasy, but they try to dissuade the hosed-up stuff and see if they want to really do it in Virtual first. If they really want to kill a hooker, then oookay Go get that girl flagged catholic and send her to his room  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
But he agrees with that... he's arguing from one step further remove than you and saying that yes, in the moment that second copy of you does not want to die. But from a perspective of either the you before the copy, or of an outside observer, if you fork someone (and you really have to think of them as two separate forks, not an "original" and a "copy" - this is what he's getting at with saying "you're information" over and over, there is no originality or hierarchy, these post-fork beings are both equally you - and then one of the forks dies but the other survives, it sucks for that fork but you, your data, your consciousness, is still present. It happens to be encapsulated in the fork that didn't die. It does suck for the fork that does! That's sad! But that fork comes after the decision to do the fork in the first place (which is the SOMA analogy, because pre-fork person has successfully escaped - it's just that fork A has to drown while fork B gets to go to space) and considering the two forks are the same person, when somebody says to them "hey one of you has to die but the consciousness lives on" it's maybe not as hard a choice to make. The consciousness isn't literally shared like one mind controlling two bodies. Each body has its own mind, they're just identical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Yes, thankyou. Please. This is exactly what I'm trying to get out of him. A man who cannot understand a post will never understand the true mysteries of the mind! Click here to watch me answer your question. Click here to read it even better. Oops, I did it again! Tell us. Zaphod. Have you recently died and been restored from a backup made before you read these posts? I’ll do it for ya one more time. Your existence is a specific set of Shannon entropy (shhh, it’ll be okay). Let’s call that a brainstate. Wherever that brainstate cannot go on operating on itself, *in any medium*, it dies - for example, if Simon’s ark fork leaves a meat fork behind on the seabed, seabed Simon can’t find anywhere to put his brainstate. Wherever that brainstate can find a path to execute itself forward - for example, if Simon Prime copies his brainstate into the Ark - it lives. Simon Prime produces a fork who lives and a fork who dies. Now, if he had Catherine pause his mind and upload it as is, then delete the seabed version, no Shannon entropy is Lost. No death. Clear? Or should I link a few more posts of me explaining this? Now stop dodging the wizard by pretending your feelings are hurt! Confess!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Phobeste posted:But he agrees with that... he's arguing from one step further remove than you and saying that yes, in the moment that second copy of you does not want to die. But from a perspective of either the you before the copy, or of an outside observer, if you fork someone (and you really have to think of them as two separate forks, not an "original" and a "copy" - this is what he's getting at with saying "you're information" over and over, there is no originality or hierarchy, these post-fork beings are both equally you - and then one of the forks dies but the other survives, it sucks for that fork but you, your data, your consciousness, is still present. It happens to be encapsulated in the fork that didn't die. It does suck for the fork that does! That's sad! But that fork comes after the decision to do the fork in the first place (which is the SOMA analogy, because pre-fork person has successfully escaped - it's just that fork A has to drown while fork B gets to go to space) and considering the two forks are the same person, when somebody says to them "hey one of you has to die but the consciousness lives on" it's maybe not as hard a choice to make. Perfectly said! Though they will go on to become less and less identical as their experiences diverge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I’ll do it for ya one more time. Your existence is a specific set of Shannon entropy (shhh, it’ll be okay). Let’s call that a brainstate. Wherever that brainstate cannot go on operating on itself, *in any medium*, it dies - for example, if Simon’s ark fork leaves a meat fork behind on the seabed, seabed Simon can’t find anywhere to put his brainstate. Wherever that brainstate can find a path to execute itself forward - for example, if Simon Prime copies his brainstate into the Ark - it lives. Simon Prime produces a fork who lives and a fork who dies. Now, if he had Catherine pause his mind and upload it as is, then delete the seabed version, no Shannon entropy is Lost. No death. Aside from the fact you've glossed over the total loss of information in the seabed version, who is now a blank vegetable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
It’s been years since I hung out in the OG Destiny thread, but watching Zaphod get kicked around is still pleasurable and really takes me back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:This is a valid view for needlecasting, like I said before, we don't know exactly how its supposed to work to the lowest level detail. But for double-sleeving or back-ups like Bancroft had, we know it can't be a transfer because something still is alive after. Bancroft keeps living, then dies, then the backup is spun up. The backup was thus a copy. It couldn't have been a transfer or else Bancroft's body would go brain-dead as soon as the backup was complete. I get what you're arguing here, I just didn't feel this was the case in AC. The back up is a copy, in the sense that its the same data in another form, yes - but by being the same data, it makes it the same conscious entity. This is why I read the threat of erasure for double sleeving not being a rational law (e.g. speeding can cause death, lets try not to drive fast) and more one of taboo (e.g. eating amphibians is icky). Zaphod42 posted:If you think the double-sleeving does cause one mind to control two bodies that does change things, but then does that mean that double-sleeves can communicate telepathically like I was saying? If so, you'd think CTAC would be full of double-sleeve agents. gently caress, all of CTAC could just be one guy with like 10,000 backups that all work together as a hive mind. (Which is a really cool sci-fi concept but not how I see AC being) You'd be getting into some weird quantum physics - I can't remember the terminology, but there's something about being able to communicate instantaneously over large distances due to the nature of particles that have interacted at some point, which is probably what you'd be doing. I actually wish they'd done something more with the double-sleeving - to me, it seemed a bit more interesting that the copy/original stuff. Also: a hive mind of clones would be pretty cool - forgo traditional procreation and just have a line of clones, each raised as a child by the previous clone. And they all have the same name. "Hi, I'm Elissimpark and this is my son, Elissimpark!" Neddy Seagoon posted:Your take on it being the series' bullshit is correct. The catholic coding was part of what bugged me! You've got STUPIDLY RICH people paying for services - why not keep it (more) legal by having someone who's going to be okay with dying repeatedly, keeping them backed up and having a clone of them on hand. It seems like less effort and money than having to constantly source suckers, dispose of bodies and pay off the cops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
The show really falls apart the last few episodes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:I get what you're arguing here, I just didn't feel this was the case in AC. The back up is a copy, in the sense that its the same data in another form, yes - but by being the same data, it makes it the same conscious entity. This is why I read the threat of erasure for double sleeving not being a rational law (e.g. speeding can cause death, lets try not to drive fast) and more one of taboo (e.g. eating amphibians is icky). Protectorate law tends to come down pretty hard on stuff that might rock the boat, so it's absolutely to stop some rear end in a top hat going "LOOK, THERE'S A DOZEN OF ME! STOP ME SUCCEEDING IN LIFE IF YOU CAN!  ". Also Double-Sleeving doesn't get punished with one getting wiped, they all get Erased. Kovacs only managed to swing getting downgraded to "pick one" because he brought down Reileen's criminal empire and handed them the whole Bancroft mess to play with. The Protectorate are assholes, but very generous if you give them nice things. (and, of course, still undermines the series' messages of "THE METHS ARE UNTOUCHABLE GODS, WOE UNTO COMMON FOLK", because the Protectorate just came down on them hard due to how it plays out in the book). The whole thing of "lol, we sold your sister to the Yakuza first chance we had" is just bad writing on the series.Just to give you an idea of the government you're dealing with there; There is a state-sponsored archaeological history that the Martians all died in a total civil war against their capital/homeworld of Mars. Any archaeologist with their tools will tell you that they actually perceived whatever world they lived on to be the center of their empire. It's just another part of their propaganda; 'Look at the Martians falling into chaos, don't be like the Martians and remain loyal to Earth/the UN Protectorate".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
gohmak posted:The show really falls apart the last few episodes. I thought this. I still enjoyed it but the last episode was a bit weak and tried to wrap everything up far too neatly. I was also a bit disappointed Kovacs didn't swap bodies at the end to raid the sky ship and everyone always looked like their sleeves in the virtual world too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Aside from the fact you've glossed over the total loss of information in the seabed version, who is now a blank vegetable. None is lost at all - the brain state continues in the ark, as our kindly wizard has proven. Will you cower from his clarity still!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Got into this b/c an entire metro station here in Copenhagen was turned into an ad for the show, and I'm a colossal shadowrun nerd  I gotta say, not having read the books, the show is a job extremely well done. I could do without the graphic and gratitous violence against naked women in every other episode, because it's not really necessary. Like, I get you want to be colossal loving gritlords, but I almost cheered when there was a dead male hooker in the final episode, it's that bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Tias posted:Got into this b/c an entire metro station here in Copenhagen was turned into an ad for the show, and I'm a colossal shadowrun nerd Consider this; In a show that's meant to be about putting a stop to death and the consequences of that, how many secondary/recurring characters (that weren't antagonists) were resleeveable after death? General Battuta posted:None is lost at all - the brain state continues in the ark, as our kindly wizard has proven. Will you cower from his clarity still!? Your "brain state" is a flat image rendered on different hardware, and you just come off as a smug self-righteous dipshit with you poorly-conceived wizard example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Consider this; In a show that's meant to be about putting a stop to death and the consequences of that, how many secondary/recurring characters (that weren't antagonists) were resleeveable after death? I'm not sure I understand the question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm not sure I understand the question. Every single character that dies gets, gasp, SHOT THROUGH THE STACK! Oh no, they're gone forever... like literally any other show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Every single character that dies gets, gasp, SHOT THROUGH THE STACK! Oh no, they're gone forever... like literally any other show. Sure. What does that have to do with my annoyance that the violence is so gendered?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Tias posted:Sure. What does that have to do with my annoyance that the violence is so gendered? I meant it more as a slam against the general quality of the show, your argument on that point is pretty valid. edit: Also the stuff like "oh Laurens and Meths kill hookers, but it's okay it's just SLEEVE death and they give us new ones   " is entirely on the series, the book doesn't do that.
Neddy Seagoon fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
Ah, sure. I might have to read the books someday, as is I think the series is pretty solid, but there are some writing and pacing issues to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Just what the hell do you think data is? The number one is data. It's represented by a vertical line but the vertical line is not the number one. You can erase the line and the number one is unaffected. You've just erased a representation of the data, not the data itself, because the data was never there. If you have a file on your computer and you copy it onto a USB stick then you have two representations of the same data. If you lose one copy it's fine because it was just a representation, not the data. The data is fine and you still have a perfectly good representation of it to refer to. Neddy Seagoon posted:You cannot "transfer" something at a quantum level; You only act and influence upon other objects by observation or interaction. In this case creating a replicated copy based on a source version. You are still dead on the floor with your clone feeling rather smug about being alive. Zaphod and myself are not talking about a soul either, but the processing regions of the cerebrum, which you glossed right over in your poor cyborging example. If it's not you doing the thinking, it's someone else. Zaphod42 posted:You die, but you also live on. Zaphod42 posted:Even if its indistinguishable that does not mean they're the same thing. That's the point. Zaphod42 posted:WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOULS. Hammerstein posted:In your example humans, actually self-aware living beings, are nothing but carbon&water and some data. So self-awareness and consciousness are non-factors ? Hammerstein posted:But the whole point is, what about the original ? That person, as a living being, has just lost his life. Zaphod42 posted:The point is though you still have 2 separate USB sticks. Each one is an individual, complete copy of the data. Zaphod42 posted:You said before that anywhere your state or pattern was reproduced would be "you", and that you don't die as a result. But then how are forks even possible? Zaphod42 posted:Battuta, do you think double sleeve clones would be able to talk to themselves telepathically? You maintain that one immutable ur-consciousness exists wherever that state exists. But that doesn't make sense. Elissimpark posted:And (to me) this is the issue with double sleeving, in the series, at least - one mind wasn't meant to control two bodies, at least not without loving up the mind attempting to do it, which was part of why Dimi was in the mental state he was. The Ninth Layer posted:Battuta do you at least agree with him that in the case of SOMA someone drowns, in the case of two Kovacs' someone gets deleted, in the case of Bancroft a Laurens Bancroft died from a bullet (or plasma ray or w/e) to the head?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
So the access to Bankcroft's money was based on the DNA of kovac's sleeve, does that mean that he lost it at the end of the show?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 03:21
|
|