Questionable ethics - Living Memory

[Turtledeluxe]

I don't know how you got that from my message. I'm not saying this is not philosophical enough for me.
I'm saying that the eternals basically ask the question "what does it mean to be alive" (or more accurately, "what are the limits of being alive"), which is a question that has been there for hundreds, even thousands of years, with no definitive answers. Then FFXIV gave a simple answer. If your personnal belief align with that answer given in DT and you consider that the endless don't meet the requirements to be considered alive, you will not have any problem with it. If you consider they do meet the requirement, you will have problems with the way DT treated them.

I'm not giving a solution, I'm explaining why both vision have their arguments, and why there will never be any consensus on that kind of question.

You clearly said "they have the capacity to make new memories, they have individuality". But those are all qualities they had while alive. So please explain how a copy and digital simulation of a dead person, somehow leads to life?

It's not an ethical or deep question. If your grandma died today, and an AI was able to replicate her behavior with a projection of your grandma that was localised to your neighborhood by a projector, is that now your grandma? Does that have rights? Maybe if you are willfully suppressing what you know is true because you want to win internet arguments, but you aren't deep.

The digital projection would never be your grandma no matter how authentic it behaved. You know it and I know it. And that's what the Endless literally are.

[Arzalis]

But those are all qualities they had while alive.

Does having those qualities not also make something alive? You're sort of failing to see the argument here because you don't want to.

In your example, the copy may not actually be your grandma, but it's worth asking at what point something like that becomes it's own living entity regardless of the circumstances of it's creation.

Also, the projector example doesn't quite hold up. When you turn off living memory some of the endless still stick around. That's like unplugging the projector but the projected image stays and says it still has stuff to do. Your whole analogy falls apart with that. Even the slightest bit of inquisitiveness would have someone questioning things at that point.

Personally, for me, my issues with the zone aren't even necessarily about the conclusion the Scions came to. It's how readily they accepted it and didn't really question anything. That's extremely out of character, especially for people who should know better. Cahciua herself is a strong example that her words aren't matching up to the reality of the situation. There's a very "ends justify the means" feeling to the whole story there and that really isn't how the WOL and Co normally act. That is how the Ascians have always acted, however so I think the comparison is worth considering.

All this to say: the writers didn't do any of this intentionally and it's just a poorly written section of the story. You're clearly supposed to just agree with them.

[Turtledeluxe]

Does having those qualities not also make something alive? You're sort of failing to see the argument here because you don't want to.

In your example, the copy may not actually be your grandma, but it's worth asking at what point something like that becomes it's own living entity regardless of the circumstances of it's creation.

Also, the projector example doesn't quite hold up. When you turn off living memory some of the endless still stick around. That's like unplugging the projector but the projected image stays and says it still has stuff to do. Your whole analogy falls apart with that. Even the slightest bit of inquisitiveness would have someone questioning things at that point.

Personally, for me, my issues with the zone aren't even necessarily about the conclusion the Scions came to. It's how readily they accepted it and didn't really question anything. That's extremely out of character, especially for people who should know better. Cahciua herself is a strong example that her words aren't matching up to the reality of the situation. There's a very "ends justify the means" feeling to the whole story there and that really isn't how the WOL and Co normally act. That is how the Ascians have always acted, however so I think the comparison is worth considering.

All this to say: the writers didn't do any of this intentionally and it's just a poorly written section of the story. You're clearly supposed to just agree with them.

Having those qualities as a copy and simulation makes you perceivably alive. That's different from being alive.

As for the remaining Endless, I was under the impression that the soul aether didn't just immediately dissipate in certain cases in order for us to have blue quests. So maybe it's like a projector that has backup batteries.

As far as the writers yes rhe story is pretty bad. That's true of most of the xpac. But I think they didn't explore AI, because to your point about the projector, we don't really have a 1:1 in reality for memory aether. If we ever do achieve fully conscious AI, it would be totally different from what is going on here.

And the blue quest thing is not just in DT. People are still sitting in the train in Garlemald. I'm pretty sure the blood is still on the floor. Some things in MMos just have to stick around bc of the game and don't necessarily make narrative sense.

[WickedSensei]

Having those qualities as a copy and simulation makes you perceivably alive. That\\'s different from being alive.

As for the remaining Endless, I was under the impression that the soul aether didn\\'t just immediately dissipate in certain cases in order for us to have blue quests. So maybe it\\'s like a projector that has backup batteries.

As far as the writers yes rhe story is pretty bad. That\\'s true of most of the xpac. But I think they didn\\'t explore AI, because to your point about the projector, we don\\'t really have a 1:1 in reality for memory aether. If we ever do achieve fully conscious AI, it would be totally different from what is going on here.

And the blue quest thing is not just in DT. People are still sitting in the train in Garlemald. I\\'m pretty sure the blood is still on the floor. Some things in MMos just have to stick around bc of the game and don\\'t necessarily make narrative sense.

Narratively it's stated that some endless will be lingering after the shutdown if they felt they were not ready to go yet or had things to still do(paraphrasing).

[Turtledeluxe]

So you basically admit that the prior knowledge of them being copies is the main difference. That fact does matter to the question "is it the same person", but does it matters when it come to the question "is it a living being"? I mean, I guess clones are not living being then? And if they are, how is it different from a copy in an artificial body? Is it the fact it's in artificial body? then what about Robot Otis? Is he not a living being?

Well it also says simulation. Since it's a copy of a person who is dead, that doesn't change from that state and doesn't have any internal processes to speak of, yeah they're more akin to being lifelike than alive. Ultimately they are not the original person and not a continuation of the same existence. They're defined as living memories. If you want to call that alive that's up to you, I don't think that's what we use that term for in reality. I don't think we would use it if Endless really existed. They'd be considered very bizarre.

Regarding Otis, Otis is a better comparison to a real life situation where someone's consciousness is directly placed into a vessel. All of that consciousness and its subjective experience are continuing onward.

The Endless Otis is his lifelike Endless counterpart who is simulating any version of him up to the point of the upload.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Well it also says simulation. Since it's a copy of a person who is dead, that doesn't change from that state and doesn't have any internal processes to speak of, yeah they're more akin to being lifelike than alive. Ultimately they are not the original person and not a continuation of the same existence. They're defined as living memories. If you want to call that alive that's up to you, I don't think that's what we use that term for in reality. I don't think we would use it if Endless really existed. They'd be considered very bizarre.

Regarding Otis, Otis is a better comparison to a real life situation where someone's consciousness is directly placed into a vessel. All of that consciousness and its subjective experience are continuing onward.

The Endless Otis is his lifelike Endless counterpart who is simulating any version of him up to the point of the upload.

If the Endless don't have internal processes, how do we see a flash of what Otis is thinking of? The game literally shows us one of their thoughts so we KNOW they have internal processes. They may be copies, but Cahcuia never asserted they weren't feeling thinking beings, she just downplayed their humanity by pointing out they aren't the originals. She never said they weren't sentient. After all, if you had a park full of beings that didn't have consciousness, who are they doing all this for? Why would anyone build a program that simulates living beings with no one there to experience the simulation? It'd be like running an empty holodeck for centuries, to what end? Why?

[Turtledeluxe]

If the Endless don't have internal processes, how do we see a flash of what Otis is thinking of? The game literally shows us one of their thoughts so we KNOW they have internal processes. They may be copies, but Cahcuia never asserted they weren't feeling thinking beings, she just downplayed their humanity by pointing out they aren't the originals. She never said they weren't sentient. After all, if you had a park full of beings that didn't have consciousness, who are they doing all this for? Why would anyone build a program that simulates living beings with no one there to experience the simulation? It'd be like running an empty holodeck for centuries, to what end? Why?

I don't see how seeing Otis thinking about something proves that he has a physical nervous system or brain. He's a fascimile of someone who had those things-- why wouldn't he be able to think? You know what he can't do? He can't tell you the flavor of ice cream you're eating if you ask him to guess because he can't taste it. He can't grow. He can't reproduce. You can turn him on and off and he will be in the same state. Life is not defined by having thoughts. You can call it something, it's not life.

Endless are lifelike, as I keep saying. Perceivably alive. Their consciousness is functional, it's just not actually real.

[CNitsah]

You clearly said "they have the capacity to make new memories, they have individuality". But those are all qualities they had while alive. So please explain how a copy and digital simulation of a dead person, somehow leads to life?

It's not an ethical or deep question. If your grandma died today, and an AI was able to replicate her behavior with a projection of your grandma that was localised to your neighborhood by a projector, is that now your grandma? Does that have rights? Maybe if you are willfully suppressing what you know is true because you want to win internet arguments, but you aren't deep.

The digital projection would never be your grandma no matter how authentic it behaved. You know it and I know it. And that's what the Endless literally are.

Me: "there is no right answer, it depends on your opinion on "what are the condition to be considered alive".
You; "You said they're alive, prove me they're alive".

First of all I never pretended to be deep. I said the the question "what is being alive" is a deep question. If you don't understand the difference, that's on you.

But I'll try a last time. If it's it acts like like your grandmother, has her memory,... if it's an exact copy of her, how is she different from your grandmother? It's Theseus ship question applied to a living being. Sure, affectively, you probably won't consider her as your grandmother, but isn't she still living being. The question is "what make a living being a living being", and your answer to that is "I said it's not a living being". That question hasn't been answered by philosophers, doctors, intellectuals for thousands of years (that why question like abortion are still very hot). From the myths about artificial being like the golem to science fiction with frankenstein's monster, all the stories about artificial intelligence sentience or the status of clones, there is thousand of fiction based on the fact this question has not been answered. Even FFXIV relied on that in EW. But all that seem to fly far over your head.

Personally, for me, my issues with the zone aren't even necessarily about the conclusion the Scions came to. It's how readily they accepted it and didn't really question anything. That's extremely out of character, especially for people who should know better. Cahciua herself is a strong example that her words aren't matching up to the reality of the situation. There's a very "ends justify the means" feeling to the whole story there and that really isn't how the WOL and Co normally act. That is how the Ascians have always acted, however so I think the comparison is worth considering.

I strongly agree with that part. I have no problem with the solution chosen, but I feel it should have at least been some kind of moral dilemn with what you were doing, even if you ended doing the exact same thing.