6 ms·

Crazy that people are downvoting this. Copying a consciousness is about the most extreme violation of bodily autonomy possible. Certainly it should be banned. I

by mrob 8mo ago

Crazy that people are downvoting this. Copying a consciousness is about the most extreme violation of bodily autonomy possible. Certainly it should be banned. It's worse than e.g. building nuclear weapons, because there's no possible non-evil use for it. It's far worse than cloning humans because cloning only works on non-conscious embryos.

philipswood 8mo ago
It might be one of the only reasonable-seeming ways to not die. I can see the appeal.
- lencastre 8mo ago
  what a copy of you is not you-you, it’s another you when you die, that’s it, the other you may still be alive but… it’s not you disclaimer: no psychadelics used to write this post
  - philipswood 8mo ago
    Are you sure that guy who wakes up tomorrow after you've gone to sleep is you? Or the one who wakes up after 10,000 sleeps? I'm sure he's going to be quite different... Maybe that dude (the one who woke up after you went to sleep) is another you, but slightly different. And you, you're just gone.
    - mrob 8mo ago
      I cannot be 100% certain that sleep is not fatal. If I had some safe and reliable means of preventing sleep I would take it without hesitation. But it seems plausible that a person could survive sleep because it's a gradual process and one that everybody has a lot of practice doing. However, there are no such mitigating factors with general anesthetics. I will refuse general anesthetics if I am ever in a situation to do so. I believe a combination of muscle relaxants and opioids can serve the same medical purpose, which I do not believe would kill the person.
  - philipkglass 8mo ago
    It wouldn't be a solution for a personal existential dread of death. It would be a solution if you were trying to uphold long term goals like "ensure that my child is loved and cared for" or "complete this line of scientific research that I started." For those cases, a duplicate of you that has your appearance, thoughts, legal standing, and memories would be fine.
int_19h 8mo ago
Violation of whose bodily autonomy? If I consent to having my consciousness copied, then my autonomy isn't violated. Nor is that of the copy, since it's in exactly the same mental state initially.
- mrob 8mo ago
  The copy was brought into existence without its consent. This isn't the same as normal reproduction because babies are not born with human sapience, and as a society we collectively agree that children do not have full human rights. IMO, copying a consciousness is worse than murder because the victimization is ongoing. It doesn't matter if the original consents because the copy is not the original.
  - brazzy 8mo ago
    > The copy was brought into existence without its consent. This isn't the same as normal reproduction because babies are not born with human sapience, and as a society we collectively agree that children do not have full human rights. That is a reasonable argument for why it's not the same. But it is no argument at all for why being brought into existence without one's consent is a violation of bodily autonomy, let alone a particularly bad one - especially given that the copy would, at the moment its existence begin, identical to the original, who just gave consent. If anything, it is very, very obviously a much smaller violation of consent then conceiving a child.
    - mrob 8mo ago
      The original only consents for itself. It doesn't matter if the copy is coerced into sharing the experience of giving that consent, it didn't actually consent. Unlike a baby, all its memories are known to a third party with the maximum fidelity possible. Unlike a baby, everything it believes it accomplished was really done by another person. When the copy understands what happened it will realize it's a victim of horrifying psychological torture. Copying a consciousness is obviously evil and aw124 is correct.
      - 8mo ago
lxgr 8mo ago
> Copying a consciousness is about the most extreme violation of bodily autonomy possible. Who's autonomy is violated? Even if it were theoretically possible, don't most problems stem from how the clone is treated, not just from the mere fact that they exist? > It's worse than e.g. building nuclear weapons, because there's no possible non-evil use for it. This position seems effectively indistinguishable from antinatalism.

by mrob 8mo ago

philipswood 8mo ago

It might be one of the only reasonable-seeming ways to not die. I can see the appeal.

lencastre 8mo ago
what a copy of you is not you-you, it’s another you when you die, that’s it, the other you may still be alive but… it’s not you disclaimer: no psychadelics used to write this post
- philipswood 8mo ago
  Are you sure that guy who wakes up tomorrow after you've gone to sleep is you? Or the one who wakes up after 10,000 sleeps? I'm sure he's going to be quite different... Maybe that dude (the one who woke up after you went to sleep) is another you, but slightly different. And you, you're just gone.
  - mrob 8mo ago
    I cannot be 100% certain that sleep is not fatal. If I had some safe and reliable means of preventing sleep I would take it without hesitation. But it seems plausible that a person could survive sleep because it's a gradual process and one that everybody has a lot of practice doing. However, there are no such mitigating factors with general anesthetics. I will refuse general anesthetics if I am ever in a situation to do so. I believe a combination of muscle relaxants and opioids can serve the same medical purpose, which I do not believe would kill the person.
- philipkglass 8mo ago
  It wouldn't be a solution for a personal existential dread of death. It would be a solution if you were trying to uphold long term goals like "ensure that my child is loved and cared for" or "complete this line of scientific research that I started." For those cases, a duplicate of you that has your appearance, thoughts, legal standing, and memories would be fine.

int_19h 8mo ago

Violation of whose bodily autonomy? If I consent to having my consciousness copied, then my autonomy isn't violated. Nor is that of the copy, since it's in exactly the same mental state initially.

mrob 8mo ago
The copy was brought into existence without its consent. This isn't the same as normal reproduction because babies are not born with human sapience, and as a society we collectively agree that children do not have full human rights. IMO, copying a consciousness is worse than murder because the victimization is ongoing. It doesn't matter if the original consents because the copy is not the original.
- brazzy 8mo ago
  > The copy was brought into existence without its consent. This isn't the same as normal reproduction because babies are not born with human sapience, and as a society we collectively agree that children do not have full human rights. That is a reasonable argument for why it's not the same. But it is no argument at all for why being brought into existence without one's consent is a violation of bodily autonomy, let alone a particularly bad one - especially given that the copy would, at the moment its existence begin, identical to the original, who just gave consent. If anything, it is very, very obviously a much smaller violation of consent then conceiving a child.
  - mrob 8mo ago
    The original only consents for itself. It doesn't matter if the copy is coerced into sharing the experience of giving that consent, it didn't actually consent. Unlike a baby, all its memories are known to a third party with the maximum fidelity possible. Unlike a baby, everything it believes it accomplished was really done by another person. When the copy understands what happened it will realize it's a victim of horrifying psychological torture. Copying a consciousness is obviously evil and aw124 is correct.
    - 8mo ago

lxgr 8mo ago

> Copying a consciousness is about the most extreme violation of bodily autonomy possible. Who's autonomy is violated? Even if it were theoretically possible, don't most problems stem from how the clone is treated, not just from the mere fact that they exist? > It's worse than e.g. building nuclear weapons, because there's no possible non-evil use for it. This position seems effectively indistinguishable from antinatalism.