<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:50 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 4/4/06, <B class="gmail_sendername">A B</B> <<A href="mailto:austriaaugust@yahoo.com">austriaaugust@yahoo.com</A>> (</SPAN>Jeffrey Herrlich?) <SPAN class="gmail_quote">wrote:<BR> <BR></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><DIV style="direction: ltr;"><DIV>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. </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR>Why? Why can't a "conscious being" create copies of itself and treat them as toys? Where precisely do "basic rights" come from? [1] As spike points out there are all sorts of fun things you can do with the copies. <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>For the same reason you can't treat other human level beings who are not copies of you as toys with impunity. </DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV><BR>Jeffrey, I'm not sure you were around but this has been discussed (long ago and far far away(?)...) under the topic of "Can you kill your copies?" I sorted ended up as being cast as the "bad boy" of the list for asserting that there is little "wrong" with killing your copies (once they have served the purpose they were created for). <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>You would make a fine AI overlord. :-)</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>This position can probably be put into the same bucket with my consideration of nuking Mecca for the purpose of eliminating the icons which form the fundamental supports for one of the world's religions. <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Let's not go back there again. As such an action would directly enflame nearly 20% of humanity against all others it is demonstrably a really stupid idea leading immediately to major death and destruction.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV> [Because that religion is based upon an irrational foundation and is one whose belief systems currently serves to justify the elimination of significant numbers of "copies.] (The only alternative to such "proactive" action ( i.e. the "proactionary principle") is to *wait* and slowly watch as more copies are killed in the faint hope that these meme-washed people will slowly come to their senses [2]. (Where is the moral basis for justifying that sins of ommission occupy higher ground than sins of commission?) <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>We have been over all this ground before. Why reopen it now?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>One has to realize that the basis for most of current ethics is centered around the idea that one should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Of course if one realizes that their are such things as copies and luck of the draw might end up making one a member of that class, then one would have no reason to expect not being treated "badly" as a copy since were the roles reversed you would probably be the one responsible for the bad treatment. <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The way it works is that we all get to expect relatively as good treatment as we grant to others. Don't do unto others what would really suck if it was done to you.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>Getting back to the topic of copies -- someone please show me where there is a fundamental "right" for copies to engage in independent execution. If that exists I'm being an extremely immoral person because I've got several CDs sitting on my desk with copies of Linux on them that aren't running at all. I need to go find a stick quick and beat myself for being so "bad"... <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Now you are being absurd.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>Robert<BR><BR>1. One might argue that it is immoral to treat ones copies cruelly, particularly to cause them physical pain, this can easily be worked around by engineering the copies with the inability to feel pain (there are humans who are born with gene defects which have this property). <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Then they aren't "copies" and you have changed the problem.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>2. Daniel Dennet gave a talk at Harvard on his book "Breaking the Spell" (of religion) last night. He pointed out the concept that "Religions being in their death throes" was but one of five(!) possible outcomes for the ongoing religious tsunami humanity has been embroiled in during the last few thousand years. By not taking proactive positions with respect to the elimination of what he refered to as "toxic" religious ideas [3] one is implicitly accepting the position that killing ones (imperfect) copies is acceptable. <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>You have a lot of explaining to do to make that intelligible.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>3. So as to not misrepresent Dennet, he primarily classed "toxic" religions are those in which certain ideas serve as a basis for killing people. (If one can't promote the survival and replication of ones meme set through a simple (or complex) sales pitch and endless repetition one can eliminate the existance of competing meme sets by eliminating the carriers of those memes.) <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Certain ideas versus your arbitrary right to kill just because you feel like if they are your copies? Is killing for one set of ideas so much worse than your willingness to commit mass murder and embroil humanity in religious war for the sake of the supposed defense of other ideas and persons that you hold dear? Perhaps we can take a page from some religions staying that killing others is generally wrong a bit more seriously.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></BODY></HTML>