[sumy23]

What if you could perfectly replicate a loved one. Would you consider the replica equivalent to the original person? At least to me, there is something special and important in knowing that the original person was a part of my personal history. It’s not about how they look or act, but it’s our common context that’s important.

[ManBlanket]

If they were indeed a perfect replica that fact wouldn't matter. They wouldn't know if they were a replica, you wouldn't, and only a 3rd party could ever tell you they weren't the person you love. At that point learning whether or not this person standing in front of you is a replica can only harm either party. Would you really subject yourselves to that information if it could only hurt someone you objectively love? It's not a light choice to be considered selfishly in a vacuum, because even if they are a replica they're still perfect and a person you genuinely do love. Why on earth would you want to learn something that would make you not love them, that would alienate them from their entire sense of self? Even if is the truth, nobody stands to gain from the information. So long as neither of you can tell the difference, the truth doesn't doesn't matter. Pretty sure this exact subject comes up in like 2 or 3 episodes of Rick and Morty.

[lupire]

The real risk with a replica is that you might later discover it is actually flawed in a functional way.

That's why Amazon.com counterfeits are bad.

But this risk doesn't really apply to video game boxes.

[scotty79]

> Would you consider the replica equivalent to the original person?

Yes. How could you not?

My loved one died. If there was perfect replica of her somewhere ready to spin up how could I not consider her equivalent to original person?

[sumy23]

Part of what makes loved ones special is that they’re unique. We give people names because they’re unique. We don’t name things like bananas because they’re fungible. Perhaps if you had the only one copy of a loved one, you could love that person as much as the original, but if loved ones could be copied arbitrarily, I think something would be lost.

[plasticchris]

I’m not even a perfect replica of myself from a few minutes ago.

[sjburt]

What if they are two? Or 100? With different experiences post replication?

[plasticchris]

Calvin and Hobbes have this deep philosophical question it’s best treatment imho

https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Duplicator

[CyanBird]

> Would you consider the replica equivalent to the original person?

Everyone would do this unless you believed in the intrinsic nature of soul

Humans are the sum of their lived experiences and epigenetics, so if you could replicate both, to you as an observer what would be the difference?

[netsharc]

I've wondered about the subjective experience of "being alive" and whether - if I clone myself and the original me perished - I would continue to experience life. Reading the word "observer" makes me I guess I would, the clone has all my life's experiences and memories, and he'd just observe the memories, thoughts and feelings, and it'd be identical to my memories, thoughts and feelings.

[InvertedRhodium]

How would you know which one was the replica, and which on you had special attachment to?

[sumy23]

You might not be able to tell. Just the existence of an indistinguishable copy could ruin your relationship with this person.

[stickfigure]

I hate to be the one to tell you but...

Every time your loved one respirates, ingests food, and defecates, a portion of their body is replaced. The material person you know now may be completely different from the person you fell in love with.

[sumy23]

It's not about the physical material, but rather the history, like the ship of Theseus.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

The whole idea of The Ship of Theseus is to show how silly this line of reasoning is. There is no Ship of Theseus, there is only our illusion of it.

[sumy23]

The Ship of Theseus is not a parable. It doesn't have a lesson you're supposed to take away from it. There are different of ways of looking at the problem. The "solution" that appeals to you is probably a reflection of how you think, but there isn't one "right" answer.

For example, one answer is to look at the ship as a 4-dimensional object (the three spatial dimensions + time). Yes, the material in the 3D slice at t0 is different than at tN, but you're still looking at slices of the same object.

[bombcar]

But that goes even deeper into a bit of the weird aspect of collecting. If I have my original 386 laying around, that is mine and is the one I used; if I get another one, even if it is the same make and model, it wasn't mine and so it's basically just a copy.

Part of it, of course, can be the "I couldn't get this when I was young, now I can" which drives up a lot of prices on old Lego sets, but there's more to it than just that, especially when collectors start buying items because they're rare, not because they once had them or wanted them.