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.

[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.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

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.

Have I once said the Endless are alive? No. I said they are sentient. I said they are people. My breakfast had a nervous system, that's obviously not the metric we use to determine what is and isn't okay to kill. Roaches are alive. Flowers are alive. Our moral exemption isn't for all life, else we'd starve and die. The exemption is for people. It's wrong to wipe out people. It's wrong to enslave people. What makes something a person isn't a nervous system. Pigs have nervous systems, I still had bacon.

If something has a functional consciousness, it has a real consciousness. Are you conflating "real" with biological? While we haven't extended human rights to artificial lifeforms because we haven't met or created any where we'll have to decide their personhood. I'm really hoping that when we do get there that we do better than your average Black Mirror episode. What's the point of imagining all these dystopias if we're just gonna do e-slavery anyway when we get to that point?

[Turtledeluxe]

Have I once said the Endless are alive? No. I said they are sentient. I said they are people. My breakfast had a nervous system, that's obviously not the metric we use to determine what is and isn't okay to kill. Roaches are alive. Flowers are alive. Our moral exemption isn't for all life, else we'd starve and die. The exemption is for people. It's wrong to wipe out people. It's wrong to enslave people. What makes something a person isn't a nervous system. Pigs have nervous systems, I still had bacon.

If something has a functional consciousness, it has a real consciousness. Are you conflating "real" with biological? While we haven't extended human rights to artificial lifeforms because we haven't met or created any where we'll have to decide their personhood. I'm really hoping that when we do get there that we do better than your average Black Mirror episode. What's the point of imagining all these dystopias if we're just gonna do e-slavery anyway when we get to that point?

Roaches and flowers meet the criteria for life that I listed. I wasn't aware you were arguing sentience because the ongoing discussion was about them being alive. As far as sentience, it's the same as with everything. They're sentient like.

Maybe real isn't the best word to use, my point is that it's consciousness-like.

As far as AI, the public very underestimates imo how challenging it's going to be to create something that would merit rights. That said, yes there could come a point where manage to create such organisms but that's not comparable to Endless, like, at all imo.