Siege wrote:But they both have the exact same memories up to the point the backup was made, so to say that the Bob that was kidnapped by Bragulans for 10 years is any more 'original' than the Bob who was restored from backup and spent that same decade in boardrooms leading a megacorp just doesn't strike me as quite as meaningful as you say it is.
How meaningful
do I say it is?
We see two Bobs, one of whom has continuous consciousness and experienced traumatic Bragulan de-education, and one of whom has discontinuous consciousness (uploaded and "saved" at some point, then downloaded to a clone body and instantiated) and has no experience of Bragulan de-education. I think everyone can agree that the Bobs are distinct entities, both of whom are characteristically 'Boblike,' but are not the same Bob.
Both have equivalent rights and so on; both are equally
real, and neither is somehow subordinate to or derivative of the other. I do not deny any of that, nor would I wish to.
In a purely chronological sense we
can distinguish between the Bobs because of the discontinuity: if we trace the thread of Gulag Bob's experiences back to its origin we find no discontinuity, while if we trace the thread of Boardroom Bob's experiences back we find one in 3390 or whenever the Bragulans grabbed Gulag Bob.
From a philosophical standpoint, this implies
nothing. It doesn't say anything about which Bob has more rights, or which Bob is somehow derivative and thus inferior in some metaphysical sense. It is merely a way of labeling the Bobs, as if we were to call one of them Bob-Red and one of them Bob-Blue, or tie little tags around their wrists so we can tell which is which.
Furthermore, to use a word like 'original' implies that that which is not is a variety derived from something else -- there is a strong association with authenticity here which is objectionable because both persons share the exact same origin in every way that means anything.
I see. We seem to be suffering from incompatible language usage.
When I say that Gulag Bob is "original Bob" this does not make him more authentic than Boardroom Bob. He is not "the real Bob" with Boardroom Bob being somehow "fake" simply because he happens to be the "senior self," as it were.
"Original Bob" just means that this Bob is the one whose thread of experiences has no discontinuity. No more, no less.
To use an example from the storyline, "Geppetto Junior" is a distinct entity from "Geppetto Senior," who thinks of himself by the same name because he has the same basic personality and (more or less) the same memories. However, Geppetto Senior is the "original" Geppetto, who created Geppetto Junior as a copy for a specific purpose. This does not make Geppetto Junior any less real or authentically Geppettoesque, though.
(Incidentally, the property-sharing question between them would be quite relevant, and I'm not sure how Umerian law would handle it. Fortunately, neither Geppetto places any value on tangible property except as a tool for studying sociology, and Geppetto trusts his own judgement implicitly as long as he's sure he hasn't been hacked. So neither Geppetto has any problem giving the other full access to his bank accounts)
That's why people will object to the use of that word in this context. What use is it really to phrase anything in historic terms when you're talking about mindstates and both persons recall the exact same things right up to the moment of backup? And of course it's even worse in the Sovereignty where things like radical genemodding, tailored bodies, cybertech, uploads, memetic therapies and other gee-whats all further muddy the water of what's historic or original about anything or anyone.
It's purely a matter of labeling to my way of thinking. I might as well say "Sidney Hank Red" and "Sidney Hank Blue," which would have no implications about originality... but since I don't believe that "original" means "objectively superior and more authentic in some sense that carries metaphysical weight..." I use "original" because I don't care.
