[extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...

[Emlyn]

The ethics for it for me are like this:

Each copy is as much "me" as I (current existing instance) am. If I
were to make copies for a purpose, I'd have to be as willing to fill
those purposes "myself" as "they" would be. In fact, I'd have to be
happy with a mechanism where there was no way of distinguishing, post
copying, who is the copy and who is the original.

Once you approach it in this way, there is far more likelihood that
your schemes will work. As, at the point of copying, you all hold the
same opinions, convictions, etc, there is very little likelihood of a
copy saying "hey, that's crap, I'm not doing that". Because it's you,
and you were always prepared to do that thing.

The more I think about it, the cooler I think being able to be a borg
of maybe up to 10 of me would be. I'd need a bigger house, but
probably all of us wouldn't need to work to support the lot (and my
family, and presumably their extended borganism too ;-) ). So there
might be the chance that, unlike now, there'd be a few copies of me
completely at liberty to follow their own projects, supported by the
rest. That'd be cool, I can't do that now.

--
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *
Music downloads are online again!

On 05/04/06, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Perhaps I just don't fully understand this topic, so anyone feel free to
> correct me. I have no problems with the production (creation I guess, in the
> non-religious sense) of new life, regardless of the means employed to do so
> (eg. natural conception, cloning, from-scratch, or whatever the technology).
> But so far, no one here seems to be addressing the basic rights of these
> "copies". As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically correct
> to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" as if they were
> simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an "original" version would
> presumably have. To me it seems there is little difference between the value
> of an "original" and a "copied" being; once it is created, it has every
> right to do with itself whatever *it* wishes (short of harming any other
> being).
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Jeffrey Herrlich
>
>
> ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>
> Anne-Marie Taylor wrote:
>
> > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form) I've been
> > hearing a lot about copying this, that or whatever and I couldn't
> > help asking myself what would I do if I could copy myself and why
> > would I want to copy myself. I would really like other peoples
> > opinion on this. Thanks Anna
>
> This is a very good question.
>
> I'm writing this before reading the many other replies, so i'm very
> probably just repeating some things that others have already said, but
> here are some reasons that occur off the top of my head:
>
> To (attempt to) ensure that your mind-pattern survives. The copies could
> be 'snapshots' of your mind, not active, that are basically backups, to
> be instantiated if you ever die. Limited consolation to the you that
> dies, of course, but better than what we have at the moment.
>
> To lighten your work-load. Imagine having a twin that thinks exactly
> like you. They would do any job in exactly the same way that you would.
> So you could confidently share your workload between the two of you, and
> get more done in the same time. Now multiply that as many times as you
> have resources to make copies.
>
> For fun. I'm sure you can think of several interpretations of that.
>
> To multiply your mind-power. This would presume not only the ability to
> make copies of your mind, but to link them all together, resulting in a
> kind of 'hive-mind' that was composed of many copies of you.
>
> Making another assumption, that of the ability to not only make copies,
> but to re-merge them at a later time, then you would be able to
> effectively have many experiences at the same time. This also reduces
> the risk inherent in certain activities. You could split into several
> people, temporarily, while they go off and do all sorts of different
> things, some of them could be quite risky things. The ones who are still
> around later (that still want to) could re-merge into one you. You would
> then have to integrate the experiences into a single mind. I don't know
> (and neither does anyone else, yet) if this would be easy, difficult or
> impossible. Or possible, but at the cost of effectively turning you into
> someone else, perhaps more quickly than you'd be comfortable with (we're
> all turning into someone else all the time, just at an acceptable rate,
> so we recognise a continuity between the 'old us' and the 'new us').
>
> To satisfy the urge to procreate in a post-biological state. Maybe. I
> bet your 'kids' would still disappoint you, though!
>
> There are other reasons, but those a few that i can think of without
> much effort.
>
> ben
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates
> starting at 1¢/min.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>