The opposite of the death penalty.

[Flyndaran]

Reasonably, how can you consider it murder? After all, you don't believe in a soul. If something is an exact duplicate of you, and the consciousness delivered to it doesn't perceive an interruption of consciousness, as in, it simply goes to sleep one night, wakes up the next morning, with no apparent changes (after all, identical bodies). You still exist. Everything you know, have seen, experienced, everything is still present. There's nothing special about your body or brain that keep it unique. I would honestly like to hear a justification that doesn't break down to "ineffable quality of being" that translates to "soul," since that's the one thing that would actually make the task impossible - the existence of a unique soul.

Besides, who said it would be used for minor crimes? Long-term storage would be the only way it would be cost efficient. That's major crimes.

By definition there can only be one me. Copying me and killing me, results in a new Patrick, but I would still be dead. If I believed in souls, then there would be some way I could still exist after said death. Since I don't, there can't be. Do you really believe that identical twins are, or at least were, the same person? That's where your idea leads.
I am that which started out as me and has continued to be me. Copies would be starting out as them and continue to be them. Even if we were mostly the same at one time, does not mean that we are, were, or will be truly the same person.
I've heard your idea before, and oddly I consider the only way it would work is if there were such things as souls.

If it's so easy to do for major criminals, then eventually it will be used for minor ones. That's just being frugal.

[BroomJockey]

Do you really believe that identical twins are, or at least were, the same person? That's where your idea leads.

No, since identical twins have different experiences, and were always experiencing different things, since there was no point where they could experience anything where they were the same person.

By definition there can only be one me.

Why? What definition? What makes you, you, if it isn't your body and mind, both of which are crude matter and capable of being duplicated. There's nothing essential about you that makes you unique, apart from what you've experienced. We covered that by copying your mind. Seriously, why are you so special that you cannot be recreated?

[Flyndaran]

No, since identical twins have different experiences, and were always experiencing different things, since there was no point where they could experience anything where they were the same person.

Identical twins occur when one fertilized egg becomes two separate conglomerates. So they were once one identity, and in some cases it is possible to know which one was the original and which is the copy.

Why? What definition? What makes you, you, if it isn't your body and mind, both of which are crude matter and capable of being duplicated. There's nothing essential about you that makes you unique, apart from what you've experienced. We covered that by copying your mind. Seriously, why are you so special that you cannot be recreated?

Me is the guy that's posting to you. My mind is not crude matter that can be copied in total. My brain maybe in some future date, but it would not be acting with my mind even if it didn't know that.
What makes me unique is my continuity of consciousness. That would not be maintained in any of the proposed copy processes except mine.
If I shot you in the head and you died, I can simply unmurder you by bringing out the copy I made previously? To me that's silly. I would still be a murderer. You can't unkill.
I am me, and that's that. I will defend my life to the death. You seem to be saying more that I don't even exist than I could be copied.

[BroomJockey]

Identical twins occur when one fertilized egg becomes two separate conglomerates. So they were once one identity,

Yet at no point in that time are they able to experience anything. Thus, no experience, not a person.

You seem to be saying more that I don't even exist than I could be copied.

There's some heavy philosophicalizing for ya. That is one way of looking at what I'm saying. After all, if it's possible to mechanically produce a body that is identical to another, and then imbue it with memories to the point where it itself doesn't know it's not the original, then does a person truly exist, or are we simply very advanced machines, reacting to stimuli and simulating decisions?

As for killing me and pulling out a copy, would that really be murder? If it's exactly like me, how can we know which one's the original? Maybe you killed the copy. The copy might not have even known it was a copy. Even if it did, maybe it's like someone who has 50 copies of a movie. I might get mad that you destroyed my property, but I can make another, just as good, so I'm not out much. Maybe this would be the key to eliminating murder. After all, what's the point in killing someone if they don't stay dead, and can testify themselves at your trial?

[Flyndaran]

Yet at no point in that time are they able to experience anything. Thus, no experience, not a person.

Cells exist and therefore experience things. So only people get the right to call themselves real?

There's some heavy philosophicalizing for ya. That is one way of looking at what I'm saying. After all, if it's possible to mechanically produce a body that is identical to another, and then imbue it with memories to the point where it itself doesn't know it's not the original, then does a person truly exist, or are we simply very advanced machines, reacting to stimuli and simulating decisions?

As for killing me and pulling out a copy, would that really be murder? If it's exactly like me, how can we know which one's the original? Maybe you killed the copy. The copy might not have even known it was a copy. Even if it did, maybe it's like someone who has 50 copies of a movie. I might get mad that you destroyed my property, but I can make another, just as good, so I'm not out much. Maybe this would be the key to eliminating murder. After all, what's the point in killing someone if they don't stay dead, and can testify themselves at your trial?

Of course it would still be murder if I killed someone, regardless of what happens afterward.
No more philosophy than is required for the word, "me". I really simply cannot imagine a reality in which what you believe is true.
I'm me, no one else get's to call themselves the me that I am. I can't imagine how that isn't obvious.
I also imagine that you would fight to keep me from killing you even after I showed you your copy.
I think it's funny that you seem to think my view requires a soul, while I think the same about your view.
I am valuable not just because I'm unique as a human, but because I am me and therefore unique in a universal sense.

[BroomJockey]

Cells exist and therefore experience things. So only people get the right to call themselves real?

Cells exist, sure, and they have things visited upon them which may affect them, but since to experience something you need to actually be able to interpret and learn from it, rather than simply exist during the event, I'd say that a cluster of cells cannot experience something. Check the definitions. They all mention going, living through, feeling, or knowing, and without a mind to give direction, none of those really apply (other than "living through," which is a vague term which could be fulfilled by being a lichen).

I am valuable not just because I'm unique as a human, but because I am me and therefore unique in a universal sense.

Again, why? If all that makes you you is replicable, how are you unique?

[Flyndaran]

...
Again, why? If all that makes you you is replicable, how are you unique?

What is me is not all replicable. My state of being isn't. My continuity of consciousness isn't replicable. You can't eat your cake and have it too. You can't kill me and have me exist too.

[BroomJockey]

My state of being isn't. My continuity of consciousness isn't replicable.

Every gap between thoughts your continuity of consciousness is interrupted.

[Flyndaran]

Every gap between thoughts your continuity of consciousness is interrupted.

Not on a cellular level it isn't. Consciousness includes all cerebralactivity which never ceases even when asleep.

[BroomJockey]

Cellular activity can continue past death. When a person is referred to as "brain dead" there's still cerebral activity. But unless you're actively recalling, thinking, judging, or any other mindful activity, your consciousness doesn't exist, since just cells laying around aren't conscious. It's only when they fire that they mean anything, since memories are stored in the patterns of interconnects. So if neurons don't fire in that particular interconnect, then the data is not accessed, and can disappear in a rearrangement before it fires again. So if all the little interconnects that make up you can potentially be disrupted before they next fire, the only way to make sure they're still there is by firing. Thus, if they're all quiescent, there's no way to ascertain if you're still you.

[Slytovhand]

Well, this took a bit of a turn. Although, not unexpected...

I'm going to weigh in (especially as I loved Phenomenology, Epistemology and Methaphysics in uni )

Firstly to Flyn... what's your definition of 'consciousness'? You've indicated that it's not merely the physical aspect of the brain, and by extension, it's not merely what the brain does (hardware/software type argument). Or am I wrong??

BJ - yes, if you murder an person, copy or not, it's still murder. Those 2 'copies' are now different, so are 2 different individuals - from the time of the last download they became different.

I'd say those definitions of 'experience' are fairly limited to the point of grossly inaccurate. Do cells experience pain? If all a 'consciousness' is is a bunch of cells in the brain, then no-one could truly experience anything, given the above assertion! And thus - no-one feels pain! Do plants experience light? Well, explain how they grow towards it... see, I'm using a broader definition of the term, which is still just as valid... especially if we're going to be talking about the concept of consciousness... is all we are a bunch of cells with neurons firing... just meat? Or, is there something else that makes us different to everything else out there that is just chemical reactions?

Flyn... how are you with the idea of teleporters? Also, are you the same person as you were yesterday? How about 20 years ago? While there is apparent continuity of consciousness, you certainly didn't have the same thought patterns way back then that you do now... and you certainlyl don't have the same body.. so - where's the relevant difference?



And back to the OP idea... BJ, think of all the RPG'ers out there!! They'd go orgasmic with this! Especially if you can really genetically modify the bodies at will... there'd be elves and dwarves and hobbits everywhere! (and, potentially, lots of raids and the likes... after all, if you can move consciousness around that easily, why not just grow bodies for gaming? Instead of moving a mouse and hitting buttons, you could actually inhabit the body you're gaming in... it dies, meh - just 'rez' in a new one! Larping could become a real money-maker!)*


*NB: please note, no ethical stance was taken on this subject

[BroomJockey]

BJ - yes, if you murder an person, copy or not, it's still murder. Those 2 'copies' are now different, so are 2 different individuals - from the time of the last download they became different.

If there's two copies, yes, that does fit. Now how about if there's only one person, downloaded after the murder? Same person, now. Still count as murder? Honestly, not trying to drive debate position, but what I think, yeah, it'd count at least as attempted, and Canadian law draws no distinction in charges between attempted and actual crimes, so it'd be a murder charge. Though it might make murder-by-consent a trickier prosecution.

[Slytovhand]

The way I'd see that, as apparently so does Canadian law, is that someone is attempting to take the life of another individual..(though, according to this argument, 'life' and 'individual' seem to be debatable terms)

So, given that... let's go back to my RPG'ers scenario... if I take out an elf champion (I'm playing LOTRO, ok?? ), and you take out an orc, and I kill you - is that murder?? Manslaughter? Pwnage? Where's the relevant difference?

[Flyndaran]

Cellular activity can continue past death. When a person is referred to as "brain dead" there's still cerebral activity. But unless you're actively recalling, thinking, judging, or any other mindful activity, your consciousness doesn't exist, since just cells laying around aren't conscious. It's only when they fire that they mean anything, since memories are stored in the patterns of interconnects. So if neurons don't fire in that particular interconnect, then the data is not accessed, and can disappear in a rearrangement before it fires again. So if all the little interconnects that make up you can potentially be disrupted before they next fire, the only way to make sure they're still there is by firing. Thus, if they're all quiescent, there's no way to ascertain if you're still you.

Brain death is pretty much the death of most or all relevant "modules" of the brain. A person is the result of the modules functioning as a unit.
Existance is not merely what can be determined based on relevant technology. Existance is based on what exists.

Well, this took a bit of a turn. Although, not unexpected...


I'm going to weigh in (especially as I loved Phenomenology, Epistemology and Methaphysics in uni )

Firstly to Flyn... what's your definition of 'consciousness'? You've indicated that it's not merely the physical aspect of the brain, and by extension, it's not merely what the brain does (hardware/software type argument). Or am I wrong??
...

Flyn... how are you with the idea of teleporters? Also, are you the same person as you were yesterday? How about 20 years ago? While there is apparent continuity of consciousness, you certainly didn't have the same thought patterns way back then that you do now... and you certainlyl don't have the same body.. so - where's the relevant difference?
..
*NB: please note, no ethical stance was taken on this subject

Consciousness is a form of illusion that occurs from the brain's "modules" working in concert. I'm willing to accept a continued existance as long as one or more modules continues to work. But the individuality may skip beats in existance only so long as the physical manifestation continues to exist in the interim. Beats exist because there is a quanum of time, very, very, very short but it nevertheless exists.

I don't like teleporters, because for an instant, there exists neither consciousness nor phsyical brains. The me that existed before then is not the same me that exists afterwards. A person's death and its copying has happened.

[BroomJockey]

Existance is not merely what can be determined based on relevant technology.

So everything's quantifiable, measurable, and reproducible in a lab, except for the human mind. But there's no such thing as a soul, or the supernatural.

...

Right.