[mrob]

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.

[int_19h]

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]

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.

[lxgr]

> This isn't the same as normal reproduction because babies are not born with human sapience

So you're fine with cloning consciousness as long as it initially runs sufficiently glitchy?

[mrob]

If a "cloned" consciousness has no memories, and a unique personality, and no awareness of any previous activity, how is it a clone? That's going well beyond merely glitchy. In that case the main concern would be the possibility of slavery as Ar-Curunir mentioned.

[lxgr]

> how is it a clone?

That's my point exactly: I don't see what makes clones any more or less deserving of ethical consideration than any other sentient beings brought into existence consciously.

[mrob]

My whole argument assumes that the clones are equally deserving of ethical consideration.

[brazzy]

> 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]

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.

[lxgr]

I feel like the only argument you're successfully making is that you would find it inevitably evil/immoral to be a cloned consciousness. I don't see how that automatically follows for the rest of humanity.

Sure, there are astronomical ethical risks and we might be better off not doing it, but I think your arguments are losing that nuance, and I think it's important to discuss the matter accurately.

[mrob]

This entire HN discussion is proof that some people would not personally have a problem with being cloned, but that does not entitle them to create clones. The clone is not the same person. It will inevitably deviate from the original simply because it's impossible to expose it to exactly the same environment and experiences. The clone has the right to change its mind about the ethics of cloning.

[brazzy]

You are making a bunch of unfounded assetions, not arguments.

[aeve890]

>The copy was brought into existence without its consent

This may surprise you but EVERYONE is brought into existence without consent. At least the pre-copy state of the copy agreed to be copied.

[mrob]

It obviously doesn't surprise me because I specifically mentioned babies.

[lxgr]

I'd also be interested in your moral distinction between having children and cloning consciousness (in particular in a world where the latter doesn't result in inevitable exploitation, a loss of human rights etc.) then.

[Ar-Curunir]

Typically, real humans have some agency on their own existence.

A simulated human is entirely at the mercy of the simulator; it is essentially a slave. As a society, we have decided that slavery is illegal for real humans; what would distinguish simulated humans from that?

[lxgr]

> 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.

[philipswood]

It might be one of the only reasonable-seeming ways to not die.

I can see the appeal.

[lencastre]

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

[philipkglass]

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.

[philipswood]

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]

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.