3 replies to this topic

[YOLF]

You know, I've recently had some pretty fierce disconnects with some cryonicists, and I want to know what you think.

 

Are digital copies ethical? 

 

As I see it, the copy never consented to being you or being bogged down by your concerns, whatever they are. It's just a copy and the loss of the original is the loss of a life that could have been possible. Yo might not even be around to be its friend. Neither can the digital copy make a decision as to whether or not the original can/should live, nor should someone be able to decide for themselves that it's ok to just be a digital copy. It's like a sick joke I heard someone tell in middle school. The joke was "How do you get a retard to commit suicide?" The answer was "You hand them a knife (sword) and ask them who's special." In this case the pen proves to be just as lethal as the sword. People who would sign up for this this haven't given enough thought to this and the decision can't be made for them. It's not logical or ethical and it can't be allowed to exist. People will walk away and challenge the legitimacy of our movement for allowing this and they'll be absolutely right. This can't be accepted.

 

Meanwhile, cryonics and transhumanism promote this crap to people, presumably for marketing purposes, and even if it's not what they are actually going to do and the future bans it, it's simply wrong to allow people to be so ignorant. It's inspiring to think we'll have this technology for reasonable purposes or that it will give rise to other things, but it's e can't let it be a lemming trap. It's our job as futurists to make better outcomes than this for our community and get them to sustainable, indefinite youth and not let them live in anticipation of such deluded foolishness. Some heads to be frozen need to roll (not literally). It's time for regime change. It's our responsibility as a community to promote better than this and lead people to long, full lives of meat bag life the way we know it, but always youthful, and not create digital persons who would suffer for knowing the loss of their original. 

Edited by YOLF, 10 April 2016 - 08:16 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

You can say that for the digital copy again.

 

Digital copy furthermore is not even a copy. It is some model, some sort of 3d electronic model if you like.

To believe that some one is alive while having his model is to believe, that a demonished building still exists, because you have its plans in your desk.

 

I am surprised, that the cryonics companies offer that. The people, who cryopreserve themselves want to be thawed back alive in their own bodies. They don't want to be digitalized at some moment in the future and to be left to rot after that.

 

[LongingCity]

You know, I've recently had some pretty fierce disconnects with some cryonicists, and I want to know what you think.

 

Are digital copies ethical? 

 

As I see it, the copy never consented to being you or being bogged down by your concerns, whatever they are. It's just a copy and the loss of the original is the loss of a life that could have been possible. Yo might not even be around to be its friend. Neither can the digital copy make a decision as to whether or not the original can/should live, nor should someone be able to decide for themselves that it's ok to just be a digital copy. It's like a sick joke I heard someone tell in middle school. The joke was "How do you get a retard to commit suicide?" The answer was "You hand them a knife (sword) and ask them who's special." In this case the pen proves to be just as lethal as the sword. People who would sign up for this this haven't given enough thought to this and the decision can't be made for them. It's not logical or ethical and it can't be allowed to exist. People will walk away and challenge the legitimacy of our movement for allowing this and they'll be absolutely right. This can't be accepted.

 

Meanwhile, cryonics and transhumanism promote this crap to people, presumably for marketing purposes, and even if it's not what they are actually going to do and the future bans it, it's simply wrong to allow people to be so ignorant. It's inspiring to think we'll have this technology for reasonable purposes or that it will give rise to other things, but it's e can't let it be a lemming trap. It's our job as futurists to make better outcomes than this for our community and get them to sustainable, indefinite youth and not let them live in anticipation of such deluded foolishness. Some heads to be frozen need to roll (not literally). It's time for regime change. It's our responsibility as a community to promote better than this and lead people to long, full lives of meat bag life the way we know it, but always youthful, and not create digital persons who would suffer for knowing the loss of their original. 

 

My answer is short and precise:

 

 

"Digital copies" do not benefit the person being "copied" in any way, because what matters is the preservation of their consciousness. If their memories persist, it's really of no benefit to them, because, to them, for all intents and purpouses, they have ceased to exist.

 

 

The whole idea of digital copies is a half-baked non-thoughtout compromise to mind uploading.

 

 

What is needed is research into what consciousness is, how it can be stimulated, and how it can be transported.

 

 

Also - it's better to lose all your memories and maintain your consciousness, because "you" would still exist. Yes, perhaps as a completely different person, perhaps even a non-person, but "you" would still be in existance. Digital copies do not provide any continuity of your consciousness, and, therefore, are useless.

 

[Clifford Greenblatt]

As in discussed in some other topics, the question of the soul is essential to the meaningfulness of a digital copy. David Chalmers' principle of organisational invariance would support the idea that a digital system could produce a conscious experience indistinguishable from that of a live person. If this were so, then a digital system could truly reproduce the most essential aspect of personhood. However, David Chalmers' principle is not compatible with the concept of the personal soul, as the personal soul does not supervene on anything physical.

Edited by Clifford Greenblatt, 11 June 2016 - 10:35 PM.