Hypothetical Situation,

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
jasonkoller
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:54 pm UTC
Location: Texas
Contact:

Hypothetical Situation,

Postby jasonkoller » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:44 am UTC

So lets say the technology develops to the point where we can scan a person's brain after they die and create an imprint of their consiousness.
(Similar to Dr. Halsey and Cortana)
This imprint may either reside on a computer, or be implanted in a cloned body.
Let's also assume, for purposes of this conversation, that this imprint is considered to have a soul and all that extra stuff we call "human".

Does this "person" have rights?
Will "it" be allowed to vote?
What becomes of "it's" possessions? depending on the status of the person'd will?
Is the death certificate revoked?
Should it be legal to make copies of the data that is this "person's" consciousness?
Who pays for the new body or processor time?
What happens if an unborn baby dies before birth and is re imprinted on a cloned body?
This "person" has a death certificate, but no birth certificate.
How would these "people" fit into society?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

Syntax
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:39 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby Syntax » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:14 am UTC

This is yet another question that Star Trek TNG can answer. Sentient beings should have rights. Captain Picard stood up for Data when they wanted to disassemble and study him.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby Josephine » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:00 am UTC

In my opinion, a person is defined as a specific subset of the pattern of a (human) brain. This allows for that person to be moved onto a different substrate, like uploading, or enhancing that mind. They keep all their rights. By the time that becomes possible, computers will be so ubiquitous and cheap that processing power for a mind will be trivial. no cost associated with it. In this situation, I assume mature nanotechnology. A body composed of nanorobots would allow them to interact normally. Well, plus shapeshifting, but normally enough. Copies of that mind should be legal to make with the original's consent. There is no death certificate because the person has not died (and if preserved in a computer, probably never will).
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
Retne
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:39 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby Retne » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:02 am UTC

As long as the being is sentient it deserves the same rights us plain old normies do. I don't think it's possible to come up with a reason not to give them rights.

Granted I don't think I much like the idea of "mind scanning" tech. It would be way too easy to enforce thought crime and I don't trust ruling bodies with that sort of power. I know it isn't in the spirit of your hypothetical but it's the first thing that came to mind. Maybe I've read too much sci-fi?

[edited to fix missuse of to and too(and less eye twitching was had by all)]
Last edited by Retne on Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:54 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
KrazyerKate
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:04 pm UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby KrazyerKate » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:40 am UTC

Retne wrote:As long as the being is sentient it deserves the same rights us plain old normies do. I don't think it's possible to come up with a reason not to give them rights.


While I agree with you, I have yet to see a clear definition for 'sentience'.

User avatar
Retne
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:39 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby Retne » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:13 am UTC

The definition of sentience is probably the heart of this hypothetical. Granted I do not have a decent answer to the definition of sentience. What I do know is that I would consider something that could think like I do deserves the same rights whether it inhabits a computer or a meat shell.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby Josephine » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:00 am UTC

That definition is limiting. What about something that doesn't think like you? An AI, or an alien?
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
Dthen
Still hasn't told us what comes after D
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:35 pm UTC
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby Dthen » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:45 am UTC

jasonkoller wrote:Let's also assume, for purposes of this conversation, that this imprint is considered to have a soul and all that extra stuff we call "human".

Maybe my brain's tired, but I'm afraid I got lost here.
Dthen wrote:I AM NOT A CAT.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby SlyReaper » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:59 am UTC

jasonkoller wrote:Does this "person" have rights?

I can't think of any reason it wouldn't. I think the idea behind this is for a person to be able to continue living after their original body dies. The copy should be treated the same as the original.
Will "it" be allowed to vote?

See above.
What becomes of "it's" possessions? depending on the status of the person'd will?

I imagine all possessions would go to the clone unless the original specifically states otherwise in his will.
Is the death certificate revoked?

I don't think a death certificate would be issued in the first place.
Should it be legal to make copies of the data that is this "person's" consciousness?

With the owner's consent, yes.
Who pays for the new body or processor time?

Either the individual being copied or the individual's employer. My theory on this is that eventually, mind-copying and clone growing would become state-funded, because it would be a lot cheaper than having to pay a state pension, and the new clone is fit to work and pay taxes and generate economic activity. Maybe there would be a private market for "enhanced" clones which are physically stronger or faster than the original, whereas the state-funded option would be a bog-standard non-genetically-modified clone of what you started with.
What happens if an unborn baby dies before birth and is re imprinted on a cloned body?

Perhaps the unborn child could be resurrected in a clone, maybe not. Before a certain stage of foetal development, there's no mind to scan.
This "person" has a death certificate, but no birth certificate.

I'm not sure what you mean by this one.
How would these "people" fit into society?

The way I envision it, exactly the same way as natual-borns.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby folkhero » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:27 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
Will "it" be allowed to vote?

See above. [yes]
Should it be legal to make copies of the data that is this "person's" consciousness?

With the owner's consent, yes.

So could I make a billion copies of myself onto computers in order to sway an election?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby SlyReaper » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:42 am UTC

folkhero wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
Will "it" be allowed to vote?

See above. [yes]
Should it be legal to make copies of the data that is this "person's" consciousness?

With the owner's consent, yes.

So could I make a billion copies of myself onto computers in order to sway an election?

Erm...

I hadn't thought of that. :oops:

Would it be beyond the wit of man to attach some read-only meta data to each copied mind, saying who that person is? That way if one of your clones goes to vote after you have already voted, it would register that that clone had already voted.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby DSenette » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:01 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
folkhero wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
Will "it" be allowed to vote?

See above. [yes]
Should it be legal to make copies of the data that is this "person's" consciousness?

With the owner's consent, yes.

So could I make a billion copies of myself onto computers in order to sway an election?

Erm...

I hadn't thought of that. :oops:

Would it be beyond the wit of man to attach some read-only meta data to each copied mind, saying who that person is? That way if one of your clones goes to vote after you have already voted, it would register that that clone had already voted.

until someone figures out how to overwrite the data, and then, well, you get the picture
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby mmmcannibalism » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:33 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
folkhero wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
Will "it" be allowed to vote?

See above. [yes]
Should it be legal to make copies of the data that is this "person's" consciousness?

With the owner's consent, yes.

So could I make a billion copies of myself onto computers in order to sway an election?

Erm...

I hadn't thought of that. :oops:

Would it be beyond the wit of man to attach some read-only meta data to each copied mind, saying who that person is? That way if one of your clones goes to vote after you have already voted, it would register that that clone had already voted.


But what if you and your clone come to different decisions about who to vote for?
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
dragon
"Can I have a Mountain Dew?!"
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:18 am UTC
Location: the darkness

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby dragon » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:15 am UTC

I suppose you could have a sub-vote? Whatever gets the majority of your clone-group is what "you" vote for.

But I think there's more problems here with creating multiple copies. It would be unethical to ever delete a copy (equates to murder of a sentient being) so the production of multiples would need to be done with great care and understanding of the permanent consequences. It should be highly restricted, and I imagine that thorough and informed consent would be required, as any clones produced would not be the original's property or under the original's control in any way. Indeed, the term "original" becomes meaningless when speaking of a purely digital copy. They would become seperate entities with time but neither more "original" than the other. And you'd be stuck with each other for the rest of your digital lives, more like twins or triplets than an orginal and their copies.
Context? What context?
Sandry wrote:I'm kind of feeling like it'd be a good idea to somehow position a vibrator for hands-free use, then you can legitimately DDR with your feet while knitting and it all works.

workover
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:42 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby workover » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:23 am UTC

The ability to replicate the self seems to make voting obsolete. Why vie with others only to end up with a compromise when you can create a whole community of people who are actually as near to numerically identical to you as possible. While a dozen replicants would begin identically, as time passes, they will begin to diverge and become different people (which makes my earlier point a paper tiger), and then things get really complicated in a kind of cultural identity disorder.


____________________________________
I love good comics and good term papers.
Last edited by workover on Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:37 am UTC

I suppose you could have a sub-vote? Whatever gets the majority of your clone-group is what "you" vote for.


But as soon as you have separate experiences you will start becoming distinct people; what gives the other members of the group the right to restrict how much an individuals member's vote will count?
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
dragon
"Can I have a Mountain Dew?!"
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:18 am UTC
Location: the darkness

Re: Hypothetical Situation,

Postby dragon » Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:59 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
I suppose you could have a sub-vote? Whatever gets the majority of your clone-group is what "you" vote for.
But as soon as you have separate experiences you will start becoming distinct people; what gives the other members of the group the right to restrict how much an individuals member's vote will count?
Such restriction would need to be part of the prior consent agreement. An appropriate modification of rights in exchange for permitting them to bifurcate. That they may become quite distinct individuals over time and still be allotted only a fraction of a vote is less than optimal, but at least it could be an informed choice.
Context? What context?
Sandry wrote:I'm kind of feeling like it'd be a good idea to somehow position a vibrator for hands-free use, then you can legitimately DDR with your feet while knitting and it all works.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests