Questionable ethics - Living Memory

[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.