Re: Uploading (Who is Who?)
Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:41:44 -0500
Reality wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 ShawnJ99@aol.com wrote:
>
> ["]U. Sov wrote that I wrote the following:
> ["]
> ["]<< >On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 ShawnJ99@aol.com wrote:
> ["] >
> ["] >I would say that they would both be accountable for past actions
> ["] >(before cloning), so they should both be put on trial
> ["] >together. >>
> ["]
> ["]>Furthermore, I think that the resources of the original should
> ["]>be divided equally with the clone, as the clone was just as responsible
> ["]>for achiveing the wealth as the original.
> ["]
> ["]>For serious offenses, prison with the option of assisted suicide is the
> ["]>most humane thing to do.
> ["]
> ["] Here are my responses to U.Sov.'s final comments:
> ["]
> ["]>Furthermore, I think that the resources of the original should
> ["]>be divided equally with the clone, as the clone was just as responsible
> ["]>for achiveing the wealth as the original.
> ["]
> ["]>Cloning is giving birth to a life form.
> ["]>Must I give up half of what I own to a child not yet born?
> ["]
> ["]I would say that, in the case of complete and perfect replication (intact
> ["]with memories), not just regular cloning, then the copy is in fact just as
> ["]much the original as was the original at the time of the copy. Thus, it
> ["]would be inaccurate to say it is "a child not yet born". If you walk into a
> ["]duplication chamber of some type, and knowingly copy yourself, the "you" that
> ["]comes out of the side marked "the copy", will be no less the person who
> ["]originally walked into the duplication chamber than the person who comes out
> ["]of the side marked "the original". It's not like a photo copying machine,
> ["]where there is a 15% degradation in quality. It is 100% the original. I
> ["]think the question of "who's who" loses meaning in the debate. The fact is
> ["]you slit into two pieces (seemingly).
> ["]
>
> I agree entirely. If however, you clone a body and not the mind, then the
> clone should be treated as a new person, with no accountability at the
> time of its creation.
We are talking about a technique that is not cloning but production of
human analogs, much like bringing your duplicate here from a parallel
universe. In the case of analogs, property rights as well as personal
responsibility are indeed shared. Imagine someone killing someone then
making 10 duplicates of himself. Pleading guilty gets him 20 years, with
parole at 8 years, yet with shared responsibility, the 8 years are
divided among 10 analogs (plus the original, who may even into hiding)
so they each serve 9.6 months before getting out on good behavior. Since
they would be sentenced at the same time, they would most likely serve
at the same prison, and would hang together, so they wouldn't have to
worry about bending over for the soap.
IF the individual is sufficiently wealthy, as long as they don't mind
diluting their wealth by the number of analogs produced, and can escape
wrongful death lawsuits, this would be a useful option.
>
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@tpk.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com
Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/
Mikey's Animatronic Factory
My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA)
MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday
Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH)
------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/local/bin/perl-0777---export-a-crypto-system-sig-RC4-3-lines-PERL
@k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_
]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256;
&S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}