“I suppose, that personal identity cannot be contained within the history of choices that have been made, because for every choice that has been made, if it was truly a ‘choice’ at all, it was also made the other way in some other tributary of the Great Tao.”
This might sound like a nitpick and a pet peeve, but in this case I think it’s important and essential: Your decisions do not split you. At least, not in the way one would naively expect.
See Thou Art Physics: To the extent one make choices at all, one does so in a deterministic manner. When one is on a knife’s edge, it’s natural to feel like one’s decision is indeterminate until one actually makes a decision, but that doesn’t mean it’s not determined by one’s decision process. I don’t know to what degree typical decisions are deterministic. Reasons can move one to action, but one’s true reasons for action are obscured by later rationalization. It may be possible to control the degree to which one’s decisions depend on quantum indeterminacy. If there’s a lot of indeterminacy, it might be best to think of identity as a probabilistic computation instead of a deterministic one.
One’s decisions can also depend on quantum indeterminacy in the environment, some of which might be mediated by millisecond delays in one’s nerve firings. I don’t know very much about this. This is the kind of thing that might turn Shen into a miser. But note that Shen’s environment might deterministically make Shen a miser, depending on their disposition.
There is also a chance that otherwise deterministic computations in one’s head can be occasionally frustrated by freak quantum tunneling events. But this accounts for a very small amount of amplitude, and you could think of it as overriding one’s decision process (like an aneurysm would), rather than part of one’s personality.
This subject warrants a lot of discussion — I’m not an expert, please correct me if I said something incorrect — but I don’t think it has much bearing on the question of what identity is.
This might sound like a nitpick and a pet peeve, but in this case I think it’s important and essential: Your decisions do not split you. At least, not in the way one would naively expect.
I think I see it the opposite way: The splits forge your decisions.
When Shen said:
“I suppose, that personal identity cannot be contained within the history of choices that have been made, because for every choice that has been made, if it was truly a ‘choice’ at all, it was also made the other way in some other tributary of the Great Tao.”
his Teacher did not correct him, although the Teacher might have said it quite differently:
“Personal identity cannot be contained within the nature of choices that might be made, because for every you that grew to choose one way, another you was grown to choose differently in some other tributary of the Great Tao.”
Certainly, we can make deterministic choices—and the sorts of choices that are predetermined for us to make define who we are. But events conspired to combine particular bits of meat in particular ways, and those events could have conspired differently—and in each universe that they did so, there is another possible ‘you’.
But “measure” is actually at the heart of this: when we talk about resurrecting someone, we’re talking about pulling from something like their notional measure a distinct instantiation, and I would like to understand what makes one particular instantiation more ‘them’ than another. Or even better—what makes a particular instantiation of 60 kg or so of matter part of my ‘measure’, while another instantiation of 60ish kg of matter NOT part of my measure, but part of some other notional thing’s measure?
But events conspired to combine particular bits of meat in particular ways, and those events could have conspired differently—and in each universe that they did so, there is another possible ‘you’.
And I would identify less with them to the extent that their memories/histories differ.
This might sound like a nitpick and a pet peeve, but in this case I think it’s important and essential: Your decisions do not split you. At least, not in the way one would naively expect.
See Thou Art Physics: To the extent one make choices at all, one does so in a deterministic manner. When one is on a knife’s edge, it’s natural to feel like one’s decision is indeterminate until one actually makes a decision, but that doesn’t mean it’s not determined by one’s decision process. I don’t know to what degree typical decisions are deterministic. Reasons can move one to action, but one’s true reasons for action are obscured by later rationalization. It may be possible to control the degree to which one’s decisions depend on quantum indeterminacy. If there’s a lot of indeterminacy, it might be best to think of identity as a probabilistic computation instead of a deterministic one.
One’s decisions can also depend on quantum indeterminacy in the environment, some of which might be mediated by millisecond delays in one’s nerve firings. I don’t know very much about this. This is the kind of thing that might turn Shen into a miser. But note that Shen’s environment might deterministically make Shen a miser, depending on their disposition.
There is also a chance that otherwise deterministic computations in one’s head can be occasionally frustrated by freak quantum tunneling events. But this accounts for a very small amount of amplitude, and you could think of it as overriding one’s decision process (like an aneurysm would), rather than part of one’s personality.
This subject warrants a lot of discussion — I’m not an expert, please correct me if I said something incorrect — but I don’t think it has much bearing on the question of what identity is.
I think I see it the opposite way: The splits forge your decisions.
When Shen said:
his Teacher did not correct him, although the Teacher might have said it quite differently:
“Personal identity cannot be contained within the nature of choices that might be made, because for every you that grew to choose one way, another you was grown to choose differently in some other tributary of the Great Tao.”
Certainly, we can make deterministic choices—and the sorts of choices that are predetermined for us to make define who we are. But events conspired to combine particular bits of meat in particular ways, and those events could have conspired differently—and in each universe that they did so, there is another possible ‘you’.
But “measure” is actually at the heart of this: when we talk about resurrecting someone, we’re talking about pulling from something like their notional measure a distinct instantiation, and I would like to understand what makes one particular instantiation more ‘them’ than another. Or even better—what makes a particular instantiation of 60 kg or so of matter part of my ‘measure’, while another instantiation of 60ish kg of matter NOT part of my measure, but part of some other notional thing’s measure?
And I would identify less with them to the extent that their memories/histories differ.
Nevertheless, the “superstimulus” version of #2 might tempt me if it didn’t seem like a guaranteed failure in practice.