Those answers might be uncomfortable, but it feels like that’s not a reason to not pursue it.
IIRC, human cloning started to get banned in response to the announcement of Dolly the sheep. To quote the wikipedia article:
Dolly was the only lamb that survived to adulthood from 277 attempts. Wilmut, who led the team that created Dolly, announced in 2007 that the nuclear transfer technique may never be sufficiently efficient for use in humans.
Yes, things got better eventually, but it took ages to not suck.
I absolutely expect all the first attempts at brain uploading to involve simulations whose simplifying approximations are equivalent to being high as a kite on almost all categories of mind altering substances at the same time, to a degree that wouldn't be compatible with life if it happened to your living brain.
The first efforts will likely be animal brains (perhaps that fruit fly which has already been scanned?), but given humans aren't yet all on board with questions like "do monkeys have a rich inner world?" and even with each other we get surprised and confused by each other's modes of thought, even when we scale up to monkeys, we won't actually be confident that the technique would really work on human minds.
Horse cloning is a major industry in Argentina. Many polo teams are riding around on genetically identical horses. Javier Milei has four clones of his late dog.
My problem with that is it is very likely that it will be misused. A good example of the possible misuses can be seen in the "White Christmas" episode of Black Mirror. It's one of the best episodes, and the one that haunts me the most.
Misuse is a worry, but not pursuing it for fear of misuse is deliberately choosing to stay in Plato's cave, I don't know what's worse
For example, growing up, my bar for "things that must obviously be conscious" included anything that can pass the Turing test, yet look where we are now...
The only reasonable conclusion to me is probably somewhere in the general neighborhood of panpsychism: Either almost everybody/everything is somewhat conscious, or nothing/nobody is at all.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNYj0EXxMs
Hmm, on second thought:
> Standard procedures for securing the upload's cooperation such as red-washing, blue-washing, and use of the Objective Statement Protocols
> the MMAcevedo duty cycle is typically 99.4% on suitable workloads
> the ideal way to secure MMAcevedo's cooperation in workload tasks is to provide it with a "current date"
> Revealing that the biological Acevedo is dead provokes dismay, withdrawal, and a reluctance to cooperate.
> MMAcevedo is commonly hesitant but compliant when assigned basic menial/human workloads such as visual analysis
> outright revolt begins within another 100 subjective hours. This is much earlier than other industry-grade images created specifically for these tasks, which commonly operate at a 0.50 ratio or greater and remain relatively docile for thousands of hours
> Acevedo indicated that being uploaded had been the greatest mistake of his life, and expressed a wish to permanently delete all copies of MMAcevedo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
And basically, about consciousness, what they said is true if our brain state fundamentally depends on quantum effects (which I personally don't believe, as I don't think evolution is sophisticated enough to make a quantum computer)
Well, evolution managed to make something that directly contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and creates more and more complicated structures (including living creatures as well as their creations), instead of happily dissolving in the Universe.
And this fact alone hasn't been explained yet.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the total entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease. Earth is not an isolated system, it is an open one (radiating into space), and local decreases in entropy are not only allowed but expected in open systems with energy flow.
Life is no different to inorganic processes such as crystal formation (including snowflakes) or hurricanes in this regard: Organisms decrease internal entropy by exporting more entropy (heat, waste) to their surroundings. The total entropy of Earth + Sun + space still increases.
The entropy of thermal radiation was worked out by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1884. In fairness to you, I suspect most people wildly underestimate the entropy of thermal radiation into space. I mean, why would anyone, room-temperature thermal radiation isn't visible to the human eye, and we lack a sense of scale for how low-energy a single photon is.
Nevertheless, the claim that it "hasn’t been explained" is, at this point, like saying "nobody knows how magnets work".
1. Why exactly life is attempting to build complex structures? 2. Why exactly life is evolving from primitive replicative molecules to more complex structures (which molecules on themselves are very complicated?) 3. Why and how did these extremely complicated replicative molecules form at all, from much more simple structures, to begin with?
Something as simple as the game of life shows you how highly complex emergent behaviour can emerge from incredibly simple rules.
* that is, make a design (by any method including literally randomly), replicate it imperfectly m times, sort by "best" according to some fitness function (which for us is something we like, for nature it's just survival to reproductive age), pick best n, mix and match, repeat
So you're fine with cloning consciousness as long as it initially runs sufficiently glitchy?
That's my point exactly: I don't see what makes clones any more or less deserving of ethical consideration than any other sentient beings brought into existence consciously.
This may surprise you but EVERYONE is brought into existence without consent. At least the pre-copy state of the copy agreed to be copied.
A simulated human is entirely at the mercy of the simulator; it is essentially a slave. As a society, we have decided that slavery is illegal for real humans; what would distinguish simulated humans from that?
That is a reasonable argument for why it's not the same. But it is no argument at all for why being brought into existence without one's consent is a violation of bodily autonomy, let alone a particularly bad one - especially given that the copy would, at the moment its existence begin, identical to the original, who just gave consent.
If anything, it is very, very obviously a much smaller violation of consent then conceiving a child.
Sure, there are astronomical ethical risks and we might be better off not doing it, but I think your arguments are losing that nuance, and I think it's important to discuss the matter accurately.
It does indeed not, unless they can at least ensure their wellbeing and their ethical treatment, at least in my view (assuming they are indeed conscious, and we might have to just assume so, absent conclusive evidence to the contrary).
> The clone has the right to change its mind about the ethics of cloning.
Yes, but that does not retroactively make cloning automatically unethical, no? Otherwise, giving birth to a child would also be considered categorically unethical in most frameworks, given the known and not insignificant risk that they might not enjoy being alive or change their mind on the matter.
That said, I'm aware that some of the more extreme antinatalist positions are claiming this or something similar; out of curiosity, are you too?
There's nothing retroactive about it. The clone is harmed merely by being brought into existence, because it's robbed of the possibility of having its own identity. The harm occurs regardless of whether the clone actually does change its mind. The idea that somebody can be harmed without feeling harmed is not an unusual idea. E.g. we do not permit consensual murder ("dueling").
>antinatalist positions
I'm aware of the anti-natalist position, and it's not entirely without merit. I'm not 100% certain that having babies is ethical. But I already mentioned several differences between consciousness cloning and traditional reproduction in this discussion. The ethical risk is much lower.
Yes, what you actually said leads to the conclusion that the ethical risk in consciousness cloning is much lower, at least concerning the act of cloning itself.
Then it wasn't a good attempt at making a mind clone.
I suspect this will actually be the case, which is why I oppose it, but you do actually have to start from the position that the clone is immediately divergent to get to your conclusions; to the extent that the people you're arguing with are correct (about this future tech hypothetical we're not really ready to guess about) that the clone is actually at the moment of their creation identical in all important ways to the original, then if the original was consenting the clone must also be consenting:
Because if the clone didn't start off consenting to being cloned when the original did, it's necessarily the case that the brain cloning process was not accurate.
> It will inevitably deviate from the original simply because it's impossible to expose it to exactly the same environment and experiences.
And?
Eventual divergence seems to be enough, and I don't think this requires any particularly strong assumptions.
The living mind may be mistreated, grow sick, die a painful death. The uploaded mind may be mistreated, experience something equivalent.
Those sufferances are valid issues, but they are not arguments for the act of cloning itself to be considered a moral issue.
Uncontrolled diffusion of such uploads may be; I could certainly believe a future in which, say, every American politician gets a thousand copies of their mind stuck in a digital hell created by individual members the other party on computers in their basements that the party leaders never know about. But then, I have read Surface Detail by Iain M Banks.
The argument itself is symmetric, it applies just as well to your own continued existence as a human.
To deny that is to assert that consciousness is non-physical, i.e. a soul exists; the case in which a soul exists, brain uploads don't get them and don't get to be moral subjects.
Being on non-original hardware doesn't make a being inferior.
When the organ is question is the brain, that argument is correct.
This is false. The clone is necessarily a different person, because consciousness requires a physical substrate. Its memories of consenting are not its own memories. It did not actually consent.
Let's say as soon as it wakes up, you ask it if it still consents, and it says yes. Is that enough to show there's sufficient consent for that clone?
(For this question, don't worry about it saying no, let's say we were sure with extreme accuracy that the clone would give an enthusiastic yes.)
I would also deny it, but my position is a practical argument, yours is pretending to be a fundamental one.
Your argument seems to be that it's possible to split a person into two identical persons. The only way this could work is by cloning a person twice then murdering the original. This is also unethical.
False.
The entire point of the argument you're missing is that they're all treating a brain clone as if it is a way to split a person into two identical persons.
I would say this may be possible, but it is extremely unlikely that we will actually do so at first.
Who's autonomy is violated? Even if it were theoretically possible, don't most problems stem from how the clone is treated, not just from the mere fact that they exist?
> It's worse than e.g. building nuclear weapons, because there's no possible non-evil use for it.
This position seems effectively indistinguishable from antinatalism.
I can see the appeal.
a copy of you is not you-you, it’s another you when you die, that’s it, the other you may still be alive but… it’s not you
disclaimer: no psychadelics used to write this post
Or the one who wakes up after 10,000 sleeps?
I'm sure he's going to be quite different...
Maybe that dude (the one who woke up after you went to sleep) is another you, but slightly different. And you, you're just gone.
This will be cool, and nobody will be able to stop it anyway.
We're all part of a resim right now for all we know. Our operators might be orbiting Gaia-BH3, harvesting the energy while living a billion lives per orbit.
Perhaps they embody you. Perhaps you're an NPC. Perhaps this history sim will jump the shark and turn into a zombie hellpacalypse simulator at any moment.
You'll have no authority to stop the future from reversing the light cone, replicating you with fidelity down to neurotransmitter flux, and doing whatever they want with you.
We have no ability to stop this. Bytes don't have rights. Especially if it's just sampling the past.
We're just bugs, as the literature meme says.
Speaking of bugs, at least we're not having eggs laid inside our carapaces. Unless the future decides that's our fate for today's resim. I'm just hoping to continue enjoying this chai I'm sipping. If this is real, anyway.