On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:09:39PM -0500, Matt Mahoney via AGI wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > But I would submit that copy of you is not you. A clone of you is not you, > > it is a clone. > > It doesn't have the same identity. Neither does a program that simulates > > your mind.
I completely agree with you PM. We have clones in our society, they are better known as identical twins, triplets, etc. interestingly, if they are kept apart from birth, they tend to lead similar life styles. However if kept together, then they quickly differentiate as most siblings, to maximize the numbers of niches occupied. Thus we could conclude that if we make a mental-clone, we would also have rapid differentiation. assuming they are aware of each other. However even if they are not aware of each other, it is unlikely they will take similar life paths, simply due to differences in medium, and thus skills at which they excel. Biological version will tend to eat biological food, and associate with biological organisms. Wheras the technological one would have the technological equivalents. and what human and machine brains excel at is practicall opposite, so they would naturall fall into different niches. > > It is normal to feel that way. An exact copy of you would also claim > to be you. Most uploading proposals avoid this issue by killing the > original. destructive uploading is completely unethical, it can simply be left off the table. > > I believe that non-destructive uploading is closer, because it is > easier to collect the needed information just by watching and > interacting with a person for a year or so. This raises the copying > issue, of course. Nobody is going to believe that the copy is them. Indeed, it is a seperate entity. Much as a copy of a book is not the original. Though in this case one book is written in wax, and another is written in bytes, the copy can't see the original, and both can edit themselves. > The solution is to wait for the biological body to die, and then it is > no longer an issue. it would still be identity theft. The closest to that which may be viable, is if someone left an inheritance to this new entity. It would however be a new and seperate legal entity. > Even if you believe that souls exist, so will your > copy. If the upload is done right, nobody will see any difference. It isn't even possible to make a completely identical biological clone. much less is it possible to copy a biological organism, in the form of plastics and metals. At best it's external appearance may get out of the uncanny valley, but weight, flexibility, and all other parameters will vary. > > It still requires solving hard problems in AI and robotics, but we are > getting there. > > -- > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] Yes, I think it is more interesting to half self-sustaining technological societies. so us biologicals can get back to gardening. have some kind of trade with our technological brethren. In terms of acquiring a technological body, only way in which it is appealing to me, is through reincarnating into one. -- Logan Streondj ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
