Harvey Newstrom writes:
> Some people claim that killing the original biological copy is not
> murder and does not result in death as long as an identical uploaded
> copy exists.
GargargarGAR! I would assume even a few 100 ms of realtime neurodynamics would result in statespace trajectories of clones' diverging sufficiently to classify termination of a single clone as "murder". Of course I'm a purist, so sue me.
> If destroying the moving, thinking body is not murder or death, are
If destroying the emulation of a moving, thinking body is not murder or death, are
> people claiming that this person is not alive? If it is alive, how can
people claiming that this upload is not alife?
> this life be terminated without calling it murder and death? If it is
> not alive, when did it used to be alived, when exactly did it cease to
> be alive, and by what definition?
And just what happens if we apply the inapplicable?