Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: First upload Message-ID: Date: 21 Jan 91 18:02:40 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. Lines: 23 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ems%nanotech@princeton.edu writes: >This suggests that the proper course is to build your clone in simulation, >and measure it's reactions in a simulated environment that "exactly" >matches your real world environment. An even more massive amount of >computation is necessary, compared to the real world clone experiment, >but once again nanotechnology should prove capable of providing them. >Most experimenters would have fewer qualms about killing their simulated >clones when the experiment was ended, but the particular few could simply >leave the experiment running as long as the resources were available. I don't get it. The only difference I see between a "simulated" clone and a "real" clone is that it's possible to control the inputs to the simulated clone more exactly. For both clones, you're simulating neurons in silicon, right? (Hmmm... what about "nanon" to mean a simulated neuron?) So are you saying that the simulated clone would be *you*, not a clone of you, and so it would be OK to kill it since you wouldn't be losing information? This may be fine if the experiment succeeded. (Though if someone told me I was the clone, and about to be terminated, I would sure *feel* like I was being murdered!) But what if the experiment fails, if the clone doesn't act exactly like you? Seems like you have to let the unsuccessful clones live, but you can kill the successful ones! Maybe I'm missing something, maybe I'm picking nits, but this seems pretty paradoxical...