I hadn’t heard of “patternism*, by name, before this, though I have encountered things like that idea before.
I also took the step of trying to apply the argument I saw in this post to my life. (Are other people me?)
Depending on what you think makes you you, my prior comment may not be correct. It may be overly extreme. What I was gesturing at was that it seems the issue of quantifying whether “two things are the same” is only an issue once you have two things that you already know are similar in some way.
I mean when we have a string of binary numbers with a couple of ones switched to zeros we can just tally up the errors and determine how much percent is different from the copy.
This doesn’t sound like a blow for patternism if that difference is 0 percent. (How to deal with divergence between identical copies as a result of correct and normal operations seems like a different problem, at least within the normal frameworks of change for people.) Beyond that, if both are operational and agree that the difference is irrelevant, then even if they’re wrong why would it matter (if they never disagree)?
*If there are any resources you’d like to share on the subject, I am interested in seeing if it is interesting.
This doesn’t sound like a blow for patternism if that difference is 0 percent.
The point is that it can never be zero percent. If I copy something there will always be random errors, and even when I walk around outside I get bombarded with radiation, tiny particles and other stuff that ever so slightly change my pattern. Thus having a perfect copy is impossible in practice.
Beyond that, if both are operational and agree that the difference is irrelevant, then even if they’re wrong why would it matter?
It matters for the theory of patternism, which I reject because of the argument in this post. And how would you even know if they’re “wrong”? The whole point of this post is that there is no objective way to say that (with patternism at least). But even if they could be “wrong” then it still matters because people can be mistaken. We can both think that the difference is irrelevant but later make plans which fail because the other being was more different than you thought.
*If there are any resources you’d like to share on the subject, I am interested in seeing if it is interesting.
I hadn’t heard of “patternism*, by name, before this, though I have encountered things like that idea before.
I also took the step of trying to apply the argument I saw in this post to my life. (Are other people me?)
Depending on what you think makes you you, my prior comment may not be correct. It may be overly extreme. What I was gesturing at was that it seems the issue of quantifying whether “two things are the same” is only an issue once you have two things that you already know are similar in some way.
This doesn’t sound like a blow for patternism if that difference is 0 percent. (How to deal with divergence between identical copies as a result of correct and normal operations seems like a different problem, at least within the normal frameworks of change for people.) Beyond that, if both are operational and agree that the difference is irrelevant, then even if they’re wrong why would it matter (if they never disagree)?
*If there are any resources you’d like to share on the subject, I am interested in seeing if it is interesting.
The point is that it can never be zero percent. If I copy something there will always be random errors, and even when I walk around outside I get bombarded with radiation, tiny particles and other stuff that ever so slightly change my pattern. Thus having a perfect copy is impossible in practice.
It matters for the theory of patternism, which I reject because of the argument in this post. And how would you even know if they’re “wrong”? The whole point of this post is that there is no objective way to say that (with patternism at least). But even if they could be “wrong” then it still matters because people can be mistaken. We can both think that the difference is irrelevant but later make plans which fail because the other being was more different than you thought.
https://wiki.opencog.org/w/Patternism
https://www.gwern.net/Differences
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Pattern-Patternist-Philosophy-Mind/dp/1581129890