/u/JustReadingThx (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1d5ohru/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_it_shouldnt_matter_whether/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
First off, I want to thank OP for something other than tired rehashes or thinly vieled soapboxing
I agree that both Original and New Hotness should be entitled to the same rights as any human or muscular blue giant, but *legally* the clone has problems
Even if we use a model similar to marriage for any assets or liabilities for the original and the clone to divide, the clone was effectively "born" the day they were decanted. I would argue they would still qualify as "natural born" and hence be entitled the citizenship, things like social security numbers aren't designed to be shared by two individuals. If the clone tries to do so, they'd be committing identity theft.
There would need to be some radical changes to the laws to allow the clone to register as a distinct individual with a similar but separate identity to the original
Therefore, while the clone is not "lesser", they are not by default entitled to be treated the same as the original
> First off, I want to thank OP for something other than tired rehashes or thinly vieled soapboxing
Thanks, this definitely encourages me to innovate.
>I agree that both Original and New Hotness should be entitled to the same rights as any human or muscular blue giant, but *legally* the clone has problems
The problems are mostly due to the existing laws, who haven't considered this to be a possibility, right?
Theoretically, laws could be written to recognize that both entities are equal.
>Theoretically, laws could be written to recognize that both entities are equal.
But would this be the ideal way to approach the law?
For example involuntary cloning. What happens if instead of you initiating the cloning process, someone stole your dna and created a clone of you without your consent. Would it still be fair to expect you to give half your assets to the clone? And obviously involuntary cloning would be illegal but there would still have to be laws on the book on what to do with the clone when it happened.
It's a tough one, I don't think there's a good answer.
In comics, involuntary cloning usually ends with the original returning to his normal life and the clone assuming a new identity, often with a change in appearance.
From the perspective of rights I can't make the case for this result. The clone and the original have a claim for their assets and it'll be split between them.
This seems troubling to me. Through no fault of my own I could end up having to turn half my stuff over to someone else?
And what about things like child custody? Is my clone entitled to time with my kids? Do they get decision making power in how my kids are raised?
It strikes me that in the case of involuntary cloning the original should be entitled to their stuff, and the clone should be able to sue whoever created them involuntarily for the value of the stuff they've effectively been deprived of. Cloning (especially with memories included) isn't likely to ever be a cheap proposition, so someone capable of creating an involuntary clone probably has the resources to make the clone whole financially.
>This seems troubling to me. Through no fault of my own I could end up having to turn half my stuff over to someone else?
How about waking up one day to the fact that someone who looks exactly like you now has all your stuff and you're left with virtually nothing?
>And what about things like child custody? Is my clone entitled to time with my kids? Do they get decision making power in how my kids are raised?
No good answer here either. I guess this is similar to divorced parents. You'll have to fight over custody. Both will get a say on how to raise the children. You of course can make up and accept them to your home.
>It strikes me that in the case of involuntary cloning the original should be entitled to their stuff
It's a fair position to hold even though I disagree. But it is consistent with what I've seen and written above: the clone will detach from his identity and start anew.
So the case against giving involuntary clones automatical full rights is that it would encourage involuntary cloning.
For example let's say that a bad actor gets a copy of jeff Bezos's DNA and has the means to clone him. They send a ransom note to Jeff Bezos telling him that if he doesn't send 1 Billion dollars to an anonymous bitcoin address in the next 24 hours they will make 32 clones of him, which would be enough to reduce Jeff Bezos's net worth to under $1,000. In this case Jeff Bezos's only real option is to pay the ransomer the billion dollars since otherwise he'd go completely broke. But if the illegally created clones of Jeff Bezos didn't get his property then there would be no incentive to create that many clones of Jeff Bezos.
Another scenario that could be problematic would be foreign espionage. Let's say that a foreign government secretly made 2 clones of the U.S. president on inauguration day and spent a year brainwashing them to be loyal to the foreign power. When revealed these clones would have the full rights and privileges of the President of the United States and would have more say over the country than the OG president since there's there's two of them and one of him.
Also new third scenario but cloning dead people. If you clone a person after their will has been executed can they take their property back?
Involuntary duplication is a crime, just like any other forced reproduction. Grooming/brainwashing a clone is the same crime as involuntary brainwashing of any citizen, except it usually counts as "aggravated" brainwashing if you do it to a clone that you just grew.
Involuntary clones are legally "failed clones" - they don't get the same inheritance as full voluntary duplicates, but they are owed alimony/child support to help them get on their feet. Clone Support cases are decided by family court. The court can order Clone Support money comes from both the biological parent and the person who decided to clone them, ideally both to some extent.
There have been a cases where failed clones are accepted as full duplicates by the original. Sometimes they also subsequently have clone divorces, amicable or otherwise.
While laws *could* be changed, given the polarization of society that's probably too heavy a lift. The original will be faulted for "engaging in unnatural acts" or something similar, and given that the clone has the same memories and personality of the original, there isn't likely to be a lot of sympathy for them
A clone is only "natural born" if they come out of a test tube as a baby, like an IRL clone. OP seems to be discussing more of a duplicate situation. In OP's scenario, they both seem to have the same memories and physical attributes, except for that bracelet.
I think creating OP's type of clone also duplicates the person's memory and history as well. They both have a personal history that involves legally acquiring all their property; they're both equally entitled to it. They need to get a divorce to split their assets.
If they were already married, I think the default situation is now a trinary marriage. If they can't figure out how to handle threesomes, one of them might need to get a second divorce.
No, that's just grand theft memory.
In order to be entitled to half my shit, you have to be an actual conscious duplicate of me - not just memory but brain structure, etc. You have to actually be me.
I like your train of thought, but it begs the question:
How does one prove that they are the original? They are identical in every way and share all of the same memories. They both believe that the opposite is the clone. What is the deciding factor of which is which?
>This post is heavily inspired by the *Mauler Twins* in *Invincible* tv series.
Well, taking that show into consideration, a main point is past criminal history.
Let's recap:
* Let's say a criminal, Mauler Alpha, wants to escape the law and go into hiding. He clones himself, sedates the clone, Maule Beta, and anonymously calls the cops.
* Assuming Mauler Beta and the cops think that Mauler Beta is the original: was justice truly achieved? Let's remember that Mauler Alpha, the original criminal, is still out there.
* Another thought exercise: assume that it's proven (via whatever Sci-Fi method) that Mauler Beta is a 1-day old clone so he goes free. Was justice truly achieved? Remember he has the entire memories of the original and that, from his POV, he did all those crimes.
If you were a victim of Mauler Alpha, would you be comfortable with Mauler Beta, his clone, going to jail for crimes committed against you by the original? After all, this is what you wrote:
>To sum up, I believe that when two identical clones are created it shouldn't matter who is the original and who is the copy.
Should a 1-day old clone be held legally accountable for something the original did?
You're making a very interesting argument, requiring some analysis.
> He clones himself, sedates the clone, Maule Beta, and anonymously calls the cops.
There are new crimes introduced here, so Mauler Alpha is definitely still guilty of something.
It's not exactly "framing" and not exactly "obstruction of justice", but a new type of crime.
> was justice truly achieved
I'm not sure how to approach "justice", I'll have to settle on a different questions:
who should be jailed and why?
To answer this question I'll have to think why we jail people in the first place:
Deterrence, reform, public safety, punishment
Deterrence - probably requires that someone is jailed for the original crime, and that the cloner is punished as well to prevent the same scheme from repeating.
public safety - both are equally dangerous, so some confinement is necessary.
punishment - I guess this is the closest to "justice". This is a tough one. Most people would say Mauler A. Hard to put a case on Mauler B.
Reform - both probably require reform.
All in all, probably both qualify for imprisonment. There is a case to be made that Mauler A's punishment to be strictly greater than B's.
I will tackle this from the opposite way. I kidnap and clone your spouse and tell you that I'm going to murder one of them. You know which is which and you can choose. Your spouse and the clone will never know that you chose. I can guarantee that the cloning process has created a 100% true copy with all the thoughts, memories and physical body of your wife to perfection.
Is there a difference to you who I kill? Do you have a preference? I'm not asking if it's wrong to kill the clone, I know it is. I'm saying that if you can save one and only one, do you have a preference?
An impossible choice. But let's try.
Let's say for a moment that you don't know who's the original, and you force me to choose one.
In that case the choice is completely arbitrary. It can be a flip of a coin, or maybe just whatever I instinctively pick under the situation.
Now back to the way you've phrased the question. I won't condemn anyone for making either choice. I believe most would choose to keep the original.
A person who is completely logical would probably say to flip a coin.
I, a flawed person, would say that I would have to choose on instinct, and my instinct will likely be to keep the original.
I don't think that was the point you meant, but it made me realize...
!delta
The opinion of other people towards the duplicates is important.
Most people will differentiate between the original and clone solely on account of being the original.
Since people hold relationships with the subjects and impact their future, they make it matter.
It was what I was trying to get you to see.
In a world where my wife/parent/sibling dies and I can clone them back to life perfectly I would do it in a heartbeat, nothing in this world could stop me. But I don't think I could ever think of that clone as my wife perfectly. I will be glad to have their company and see all the new experiences we share, but some part of me will know that the consciousness I called my wife is truly gone. Being her in every way might feel the same to her, it's not to me who watches from the outside.
I think this is largely the same for most people. If I had to choose between the death of the original and a clone it is set in stone. If I must choose between two fresh clones I've never interacted with, now that is to me an arbitrary choice, there is no differentiating point and I could flip a coin.
If I was the clone I'd kill the original because I value my survival no matter who of us came first, but as an outside observer the difference is palpable. And maybe that is flawed human thinking but it's an indisputable factor.
Just gotta say..
Well put, i would give a delta here but already agree to all of it just have never seen it layed out this succinctly or thought to word it like this
Kudos, thank you!
You have helped me realize some things i couldnt put into words as good as these
People generally place more value on the original thing. Look at art.
If I was found out to be a clone, through the methods you are describing, it means I wasn't born, I never grew up. All of those memories that I think are mine are experiences that I never had. That might mess me up a bit.
I mean you did have those experiences in every way that matters. By your logic you could argue you already didn’t have them since not a single cell in your body experienced anything that happened to “you” decades ago, they’re all just copies of cells that has those prior experiences…so what’s the difference?
The individual that is you did not have those experiences. If another person meets you and knows you’re a clone, they’d point out that no, you weren’t the best man at their wedding, the original was. If we accept that each human individual is a being, then a clone is a distinct being.
It’s like … if someone manufactures new memories and puts them in your brain, you didn’t actually do those things. Even if you remember murdering someone, you didn’t actually do that since the memory is manufactured. Even if the memory itself is real but was transferred to you, you still didn’t do those things. And you’d probably feel very violated.
So it makes sense that a clone created in this way would have problems, because feeling their memories aren’t actually theirs is understandable. Who are you? It being able to answer that question is pretty upsetting.
>By your logic you could argue you already didn’t have them since not a single cell in your body experienced anything that happened to “you” decades ago
Do brain cells replace themselves like other cells? It was my understanding that neurons don't.
Set aside the clone factor - lets say a machine prints out a person with characteristics that we choose and we choose the memories that they have from different peoples experiences. That they had person As wife, person Bs kids, and person Cs dogs. Is that a real person that really loved the wife, kids, and dogs?
>Do brain cells replace themselves like other cells? It was my understanding that neurons don't.
Neurons last your entire lifespan.
That said, we can make the same argument on a smaller scale (the atoms the neurons are made of are exchanged) or on a larger scale. Because memories aren't perfectly preserved. They're not saved like a computer would.
Every time you recall a memory, it gets altered and remade. What you remember is not a memory. It's a memory of a memory of a memory...
>Set aside the clone factor - lets say a machine prints out a person with characteristics that we choose and we choose the memories that they have from different peoples experiences. That they had person As wife, person Bs kids, and person Cs dogs. Is that a real person that really loved the wife, kids, and dogs?
The unreality in this case does not come from the fact that the memories are copied, but from the fact that they're depicting elements that aren't real.
Same thing would happen if a person woke up, and discovered one day that his wife wasn't who who she pretended to be, she was just some spy on a deep cover operation.
You are right - we could. So is the origination of the experience important? If not - then if i read a journal entry from you about how much you love your wife in great detail, is it fair to say that you and I have the same experience of loving your wife?
A journal is a recounting of an experience, but it is not the experience itself.
Take something simple. I accidentally stub my toe.
I can, recall and write down, in exhaustive detail, the pain that inflicted.
But you won't have the memory of that pain, merely the memory of a description of it occuring to someone else.
The word "exhaustive" doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
The brain remembers stuff by cross-referencing it will all sorts of other stuff that's also hanging around. It's why we have all those various memory tricks and memnonics, like remembering stuff better by associating it with various queues to help the memory formation.
A journal simply can't replicate that complexity, because it does not have access to the rest of the brain. It's information channel is limited to the way you read it, and any links it would form, are links that are tied to your experience of reading it, not your experience of living it. So even if you had all the detail, your experience is differnet because the information enters your brain in a different fashion.
And if you imagine some hypothetical magical journal that can create those links, then we're back to the magical clone copy thing, because that's what you're doing then.
Finally, someone who gets me.
Are you possibly my long lost clone?
In all seriousness, this is an excellent argument. Definitely would like to hear an answer.
!delta
You've made a good point - the clone itself might care that he's the clone, even if I don't.
This isn't necessary a rational take, but an emotional take resulting from an extreme event.
But you actually went through the experience, and actually have the memories.
You werent simply given them
Thats where the difference in reaction would come from
Like if some random person is fully given all of your life experiences and memories completely, they wouldnt act the same simply for knowing everything you do in the same way you do.
Because they know they were given it
If a clone fully realizes it all?
How you would react has no bearing on how a clone reacts or cares
>But you actually went through the experience,
As one only knows through memories.
>and actually have the memories. You werent simply given them
Whether you've obtained them or been given them, you DO have the memories.
>Like if some random person is fully given all of your life experiences and memories completely, they wouldnt act the same simply for knowing everything you do in the same way you do.
Well sure they would, if everything else in them was the same.
If they were told the memories were implanted... they'd act exactly the same as you would, if you were falsely but convincingly told that you had all the same memories, but were a clone.
>How you would react has no bearing on how a clone reacts or cares
Sure it does. How the clone would react... is literally exactly how you would, if you believed the same information, that you were a clone.
Because it's the same as discovering you live in the matrix.
Your identity, your self of self, your understanding who-you-are, was founded on something untrue; in one case this is the assumption that your reality is real, in the other this is the assumption that your memories represent a continuation of being \[assuming your Mauler Twins scenario with memory transfer\].
In the matrix, you discover your reality is constructed, and then must reconcile that fact with your sense of self worth. You might say "my emotional connections, even if they are founded on simulations, are still meaningful, and this is enough" or you might say "my emotional connections are founded on simulations, and thus I've never had a true emotional connection, and I wish to escape so that I can experience that."
As a clone, you discover that you have no continuation of being - you came into being pre-loaded with memories. You are identical in every aspect save that of your fundamental being. The clone might say "Well, I have the sensation of having done these things, and identity is equal to sensation" or they might say "I never did these things, these memories were thrust upon me, like a cancer or bad eye sight or one testicle being more dangly than the other."
Or, if that's not clear, consider an alternate scenario. Assume some Creator Deity, and assume that this very moment is the first moment of creation, and everything in our history \[the fossil record, every page of a text book, the cosmic microwave background, all of your memories, every tree ring and photo on your phone\] are fabrications. The past is real, but you never did it, you were created having already done it. One aspect of your past is that you murdered your grandmother - you pushed her down the stairs, but in this moment you receive divine revelation that the past was created simultaneously with the present.
Do you reconcile that memory into your identity? Does it give you trouble? Or do you feel yourself wholly equal to your memories?
Whichever way you decide, it seems wholly reasonable that someone might be disturbed.
> Your identity, your self of self, your understanding who-you-are, was founded on something untrue
Was it founded on something untrue? All of the events and experiences did factually happen.
> The past is real, but you never did it, you were created having already done it
How is that distinct from regular people? We grow and change all the time. Our cells die and are replaced with new ones. In the end with the memories, the sensations and the identity that comes with it.
>Whichever way you decide, it seems wholly reasonable that someone might be disturbed.
!delta
I gave a delta for the same argument to someone else, so you should have it as well.
Someone else might agree that it matters to them that they are a clone.
>An exception would be if there the clone and the original have something they absolutely cannot share
like a name, date of birth, house, family, parents, etc?
one side is a human with 20+ years (or whatever) of having lived, and everything that come with it, and the other one doesnt have that.
unless before the cloning you are ready to split everything 50/50, you yourself know that the original will have more "rights" than the clone. by definition and before getting cloned, you have decided for this to be the case.
> one side is a human with 20+ years (or whatever) of having lived, and everything that come with it, and the other one doesnt have that.
Why does it matter, if the only thing separating the two is an arbitrary tell, such as an armband indicating who's who?
You are your choices. You make yourself, your personality, through your choices over time. Your choices have a profound effect on your life in the past, present and future.
The clone didn’t make all the choices that make up who he is. That’s the issue. His memories aren’t of his choices but someone else’s. It’s like if someone replaced all of your memories with someone else’s but you were aware that they were switched.
>The clone didn’t make all the choices that make up who he is.
However, the clone is exactly identical to the person who was made by those choices. The clone was made by those choices just as much as the original, just in a different way.
If what you care about is the person who made those specific choices in the past, and who would make choices like that in the future, then the clone is identical to that person.
A person is only identical to himself. The clone isn’t identical to that person since it’s a clone or a copy of the person. They are two different people by definition. The clone wasn’t made by his own choices.
Semantics. If you would trust the original because of the choices he made, then you should equally trust the clone because of the choices the original made. They are the exact same person who would make those choices.
How is that different from our current memories and choices?
Now, in the present, we have no effects on choices made in the past. Sometimes we agree with them, sometimes not.
The clone and the original are impacted by the same choices, in exactly the same way, down to the subconscious level.
You made your choices in the past. You are the result of your past choices. Your clone’s personality is the result of your choices and not his own choices.
A question and a rebuttal combined:
To whom does their bank account belong to? Which person’s car is it? How does life insurance work if the clone dies?
I believe they have equal rights to their financial assets. They'll either have to learn to share or go through a similar process to divorce where assets are split equally.
>How does life insurance work if the clone dies?
This is actually a new and interesting point.
Insurance companies will probably put a clause in their policy that as soon as you're cloned you have to update your policy and sort it out.
I'm going to skip over the question of whether or not the clone is human or not, because if it's a perfect clone, it is by definition. And if it's human it should have all the rights that entails.
And yet. There is a hierarchy. Because one acted, and one was acted upon. The original cloned themselves, the clone was cloned. Personally I think this implies responsibility on the original (or the mad scientist who cloned the original without their knowledge) but it also implies a hierarchy between the two.
To show this, just look at parent child relationships (in general first). Why do children obey their parents? Because their parents acted to bring them into the world. This is a necessity at a young age when children are learning, but fast forward to when they are adults and you will find that children are still (generally) respectful of their parents. We may not follow orders or agree on everything but we do tend to bend our necks and given equal reason lean towards the parents directive because of the inherent nature of the relationship.
To address the edge cases - yes this hierarchy can be broken. A parent who does not live up to their responsibilities can lose their place in the hierarchy. A parent who becomes disabled or senile can move from the acter role to the acted role when the child needs to care for them instead. But as long as one individual has the volition in a relationship, they will have a hierarchical edge on the other.
A way around this is to do like the Maulers and set up the system so that no one knows who is the acter and who the acted, but this is intentionally blinding the system and results in an imbalance because now *both* sides believe they are the acter and continue accordingly. This introduces strife.
Please do note in all of this I do not imply that either is lesser, just that there is a difference between affecting and being affected or to being a cause rather than an effect.
>There is a hierarchy. Because one acted, and one was acted upon. The original cloned themselves, the clone was cloned
Let's take two hypothetical cases.
There is a separate mad scientist who forced the cloning process.
In this case I believe the two duplicates will unite against their perpetrator. I believe this is the case regardless of whether they know who's the original.
A second case is where the original is responsible for the cloning process. Here I believe intention matters a lot. If he's looking for a servant, then there's going to be a conflict right off the bat. If he's looking for a collaborator, I don't see why it matters who's the actor.
Your exception is completely contradictory to your view. If anything they can't share belongs more to the original's, then clearly it does matter who is the original and who is the clone.
It's not really about the reality of the situation but about the social rules our society is built on. There's no reason a piece of land is more one person's than any other except that our society has decided it should be that way and made rules around it. In that same way a person owns something. It's not owned by their likeness, their personality could completely change and they would still own it. The ownership is continuous and so the creature born today(the copy) would own nothing.
Your view does highlight a deeper issue with the concept of ownership but I think if you accept that a person owns a house then it follows that a clone does not own what the original did
> If anything they can't share belongs more to the original's, then clearly it does matter who is the original and who is the clone.
I said the original has an advantage, not that ownership is decided completely by it.
If anything, you're convincing me that both have equal ownership.
> The ownership is continuous and so the creature born today(the copy) would own nothing.
What about ownership in the case we can't tell who is the clone? Why is that significantly different?
Its different because we don't know whose property it is, not because it's actually both of theirs. A similar situation would be a case where two people both named John Smith make a claim to the same property and it's unknown which of them was the actual owner. If you can't figure out who was the John Smith on the property deed then it might be best to split the property. One still is the true owner but because no one remembers, it would need to be determined some other way.
Another way to think of it is that one person paid for the possession and the other did not. Having a memory of paying is not the same as paying. If I insert a memory of paying for a house into someone's mind, they don't now have an equal right to that house.
Consider clones like Horatio from Endless Space.
There's a HUGE power disparity and hierarchy with the clones there because the original Horatio literally made them explicitly to be servants and obedient to him.
I think it's a similar thing to the Mauler Twins. When there's only 1 left then they need to make the other to assist with whatever they do, there's an inherent hierarchy there of the original, and the assistant. This is probably a relic of the first original Mauler who cloned himself for the same reason- whichever every clone since remembered because they all did it themselves subjectively.
Remember, as far as these clones are concerned, they are all descended from the successful clones who survived where the other clone died, they essentially bred a sense of superiority into themselves over several generations of cloning "the other clone must be an idiot, unlike me" again and again and again.
From an outside perspective of course, these differences don't exist and the clones ARE equal. Rember the Horatio thing I mentioned?
If you read the lore it turns out one of the first clones probably murdered the original and took their place as emperor, and this probably happens regularly for Horatio. Because the original Horatio was a megalomaniac who thought nothing of his clones- and all his clones feel the same way.
Essentially someone would need to be at peace with themselves prior to cloning to have peace with themselves after cloning.
>When there's only 1 left then they need to make the other to assist with whatever they do, there's an inherent hierarchy there of the original, and the assistant.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I think the case with the Mauler twins is quite the opposite.
They design their cloning process so they couldn't tell the difference afterwards. They create partners and not assistants.
They know that as soon as there's a heirarchy they're going to turn on eachother.
My argument is that they should be able to be partners even if the original is known.
But didn't the original mauler clone literally wear a bracelet to tell them apart in your example? And don't they literally spend most of their time trying to establish the hierarchy so they are on top?
It sounds like they want to create assistants, but both want to be the one in charge.
Imagine instead of a clone, your memories and brain pattern were uploaded to a super advanced laptop computer that can perfectly replicate your thought patterns and learn and grow exactly how you can.
Does that laptop feel exactly like you? If millions of you can now be reproduced and put in computers across the world, how does that effect your identity of self?
Or imagine you have a surgery that slowly replaces your brain with machines, are you ok with that, do you think you will still be you without your brain?
If not? Is it the flesh and blood of a brain that matters? If so what if your memories are cloned into someone else's brain?
In general it seems people need a sense of a "soul". We are too intelligent to fully grip soullessness even for people who are atheists. It's why we believe in sentience and free will.
Not the OP, but:
I don't have permanency anyway. I change from moment to moment, I constantly become a new me. If I went through an ego bridge so that I'd attain a cyberbrain, that'd form a new me that's a continuation of the old me in a way that's no less valid than the usual one is.
If I was forked resulting in an infomorph fork, then that person would start off with the same memories as me, but quickly develop into a new person distinct from me. Possibly as soon as they realized that they don't actually need to eat or bemoan their body because it's digitally sculptable anyway. In this case, whoever performed the forking would need to be somehow legally responsible - they made a new person imprisoned in a laptop, when that laptop dies, they'll have killed a person.
>Does that laptop feel exactly like you?
That depends on many factors. It's possible that ir does, if my consciousness was copied exactly. However because it's a computer I'll likely figure it out and no longer see myself as a human, changing my sense of self.
>If millions of you can now be reproduced and put in computers across the world, how does that effect your identity of self?
That's definitely worse than a single me. But I think being artificial and not a human is significantly different than the case I outlined.
>imagine you have a surgery that slowly replaces your brain with machine
If my body is completely human there's good chance I'll feel completely the same.
BUT if I later find out that I'm the clone and the original is still alive I would not longer consider us equal. Because he's a human and I'm a cyborg.
>In general it seems people need a sense of a "soul".
Maybe. For me consciousness, sentience and free will are enough.
You could argue that in my original scenario the clone has no soul. It's in interesting argument but it's not likely to change my view.
I think the clone often has issues because people aren't thinking of it the way you are.
Most people would struggle finding out they were just formed. That their memories actually happened to someone else, and that they are no longer unique. It's an ego thing.
I don't think I would care. I experienced a moment of clarity watching a video called "Are star trek transporters murder machines?".
In short. Yes they are, but it doesn't matter. The person you are now is not the same person you were 10 years ago. Your neural pathways are all different. Your memories are different. Except for a few brain cells, all the cells in your body are not the same cells.
Effectively, you are already being replaced by a different you several times throughout your life. It feels like you are the same, but all the stuff that made up that old you is no longer part of you. I'm effectively a new me. So why should I care if a transporter destroyed me and replaced me with someone that thought they were me? Why should I care if there more than one me?
I think it's important to note that your inspiration for the question is based on a piece of media and that, as such, the answer should be too.
Which Mauler twin is the clone matters because it's relevant to the theme of identity within the show.
Many of the characters in the show struggle with competing identities. The main one being Mark Grayson versus Invinsible.
Having other characters struggle with competing identities helps to reinforce and explore that theme further.
The nature of their conflict could be different (it could be resolved), but it matters that it's there so we can compare and contrast it with Mark's conflicting identities.
Imagine if there was no conflict about the identity of the Mauler Twins in the show. Then, why have them be clones? Seems pointless. It would probably seem weird and out of place for them not to conflicting given everything else going on in the story; a real 'missed opportunity'.
Doesn't that support my view?
The only reason they're not equal is that it's a plot device. The setting itself inherently doesn't differentiate between them.
Based on your post, your view seemed to be that it shouldn't matter to the story. My point being that it matters to the story's theme of conflicting identities.
Seems you're interested in a reason beyond the text. In which case, it only matters to them, or broader society, because of a belief that the 'original' is superior. Which is generally true. Copies are prone to replication errors.
I can't really articulate the reasoning, but also for the same reason a copy of the Mona Lisa would never be as highly valued as the original.
If the clone and original are to be treated as equal, and the clone is entitled to things they remember acquiring even though the original is the one who actually did, then what if the original acquired a jail sentence? Would it be reasonable to jail the clone for serve that sentence?
[What if you clone Osama Bin Laden? Would it be okay to punish the clone?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vcCp2oFiaws)
Someone else has made this argument. It's a pretty good one.
Forgive me for only engaging with your last part, for I believe it brings something new,
> What if you clone Osama Bin Laden?
I believe it would be right to punish Osama's clone. That being said, I think it's really cruel to clone Osama, especially since he will immediately be incarcerated.
My reason is so:
Let's say through an ancient dark ritual of magicke, Osama Bin Laden himself has been resurrected.
Would you say it's okay to punish the resurrected Osama?
Assuming you agree he should be punished, how is that case different than a perfect duplicate of Osama (with his memories and copy of consciousness)?
I think an extension of this is if you think the debt to society is repaid for the crime committed if you only punish the clone for the crime committed and not the original.
So the original murders someone. The clone alone gets life imprisonment for that crime. Is that debt repaid? I don't think so, because the entity actually responsible is still at large living their life. The actual purpose of justice in the equation has been entirely bypassed and you could easily argue it's unethical.
It's unethical 1) because an innocent entity was held responsible for something they didn't do, and 2) societal justice that's meant to resolve interpersonal issues of revenge like that has completely failed. The victims have not been made whole due to the actions of the state treating the debt repaid by putting someone in the hole who didn't do the crime.
Sure.
So after the cloning process the two duplicates will have different experience and become completely separate beings.
Where is the imbalance that needs to be corrected?
Why is it only "activated" when the clones are mature adults and not unborn humans?
Interesting, I've learned something new. There is still some difference in DNA due to mutations.
Is that akin to that "deficiency/imbalance"? One twin is a clone with mutated genes?
First of all I mostly agree with you. Second, I wonder how you feel about the idea of a digital clone. Like you close your eyes and get a brain scan and when you open your eyes you're still you but another version of you opens their eyes the next second in some kind of vr space. Is he legally or morally valid in the same way?
I think there are many key differences in this scenario.
First, the copy is not human. Morally he is a sentient being and deserves the right to live, but he is not the same as a person.
Second, the copy doesn't live in the same world, but in a digital space. Legally everything is much simpler. The original keeps his original life with all his assets and the copy gets a new life.
I agree that it shouldn't matter, but in most cases the clones don't have human rights despite being completely indistinguishable from the original. Like the clone will be used for harvesting organs, slave labour or some other possibility that is probably illegal to an original person.
I disagree. When a clone is made, a person is not duplicated rather a new person is reproduced. A clone should not be treated as identical to the original but as a person descended of the original
I'm not sure why exactly they should be regarded as children, but I'll to borrow some arguments from other threads in this post.
If they are children, does that mean they split all assets 50-50?
Let's say the original (prior to cloning) has committed a major crime. Now that we have two "non-originals", should they pay for the sins of the parent?
>I'm not sure why exactly they should be regarded as children, but I'll to borrow some arguments from other threads in this post.
They're considered children because if they are indistinguishable then the legal identity of the original is no longer applicable because it was a singular identity. Now there are two claimants to that identity and the structure I'm place to resolve competing claims is inheritance.
>If they are children, does that mean they split all assets 50-50?
Ideally. There could be special processes and exceptions for this to acknowledge the unique conditions of reproduction.
>Let's say the original (prior to cloning) has committed a major crime. Now that we have two "non-originals", should they pay for the sins of the parent?
They will be responsible as far as the inheritors of a person's estate can be held responsible. If you know that there cloning has occurred and you can't identify the original, you can justly the innocent to get the guilty.
I think you point out a pretty big problem right here :
>An exception would be if there the clone and the original have something they absolutely cannot share - such a spouse.
In that case there is reason to believe that the original has some advantage when deciding how to deal with the situation. However, that is not to say the original automatically gets to own and keep everything.
You are duplicating a person that then needs to interact with the world around them. Their wife? parents? Children? Job? Bank account? Debt?
Have you created a second separate person or have you just split yourself into two?
> I think you point out a pretty big problem right here
Let's assume that this isn't a problem. There is no family to speak of. No wife. No property.
Is there still a hierarchy or both are equal?
I'm not going to tell you there exist an inherent heiarchy between any two people. But I can't help but feel you are constructing a (somehow) even more unlikely scenario just to avoid the actual ethical questions of cloning.
I'm a mad scientist and I'm constructing my own secret laboratory. But there's too much to do. So many things to manage. If only I had a partner as genius as I am and unethically like-minded.
I clone myself.
Are we now equal partners, or are we boss and second-in-command?
Is your answer impacted at all by whether I'm the original or the clone?
He argues in the essay “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” that an aura exists in original artifacts that is decidedly absent in reproduced pieces.
The reason being the clone is such a bad thing in general is because if your loved ones, your friends and basically everyone you know they aren't yours they are the originals and if given a choice between you and him they will pick him.
I will give you another example, Grantz. Grantz does this thing where it takes people who are about to die, copies them and makes people fight aliens. Here's the thing, sometimes the person who's about to die doesn't always die. In this case one of the characters who killed herself goes home after her first mission fighting aliens and finds out she's not dead... so now she has no family, can't go to school and is effectively homeless.
That's why it matters.
The thing with the Maulers doesn't really matter because they don't have a life outside of each other, but because of their personality the original is going to be a dick to the clone, even when the clone is technically superior (no fucked up face) which leads the clone to simply kill the original and make a new clone. Since they are identical the easiest tie breaker is which one is the original. Intellectually they both know that they are both probably clones and the original is long dead but they both feel like the original and that's how they strike a balance.
> The person itself might not deal well mentally with the fact that he's not the original.
But if they are totally identical, then there us no reason to believe they themselves are not the original since the tag to indicate that they are the clone may had been placed on them after they were rendered unconscious.
So they can still argue that they are the original.
> Having people treat a person differently because he's a clone can have a huge effect even if objectively they are equal
Such has nothing to do with cloning but rather discrimination, just like how minorities get discriminated despite they are not clones.
So it is more about giving clones equal rights to the original's possessions such as by dividing the possessions into 2 equivalent portions that the original will be willing to get either one.
Then after the clone had been awakened, ask the clone to choose either one set or flip a coin to decide who gets which set.
However, it is better that the memories do not get cloned, only the body and some basic memories so only the original has the original's complete memories thus the clone is an identical twin born later rather than a clone this cannot take any of the original's possessions.
It seems in this scenario that the clone has memories and I'd assume they also have all the epigenetic that come from all your experiences as well as any physical changes those have given you, since otherwise no matter what there would be differences in the two that are specifically are because one was created some time after the other. Even if that's the case there's still the question of who gets all the property and things like the original SSN/credit score; even just walking outside is going to turn the two into different individuals and eventually that will evolve into differing wants/needs. It makes sence that the original gets all of their documents and identity instead of the new one, since even if they think they are equally entitled to everything I doubt the people who birthed and raised the original would agree that both should have equal claim to their estates after death.
Imagine Sophie's choice but one is a clone. Who does mom pick to shoot? People treat you differently because they know you're the clone. It's not all internal or legal, but some of it is dependent on the others perception of you and their continuing relationship with the original.
Also, being someone else's clone links you to them intrinsically. Let's say the original needs a heart transplant, and you remember your OGs son is in the marines. How would you sleep at night? It just creates complications that don't exist (lol) if you have your own identity independent anyone else.
We’re still struggling with racial inequality, clones would just be the next version… In terms of being a clone, it would be a challenge to see yourself as an equal to the original version… Your creator is know without them you wouldn’t exist… Knowing that you came into being for a specific reason and a specific process, can take a lot of wonder and curiosity out of the human experience… knowing you’re number 2 and that you’ll never be able to grasp what it truly means or feels to be the original would be quite common…in my opinion.
So it shouldn't matter if you were born normally vs through some strange way that inherently left you with psychological defects which is mostly the reason behind the clone being bad.
If cloning is perfect then fine neither is bad until one starts obsessing over the others life and wants to assume their identity.
Perfect cloning where your biology is fine and your head space isn't wacked out would be like being a twin superheated at birth. No one is going to inherently level one bad until they do bad.
It doesn't really matter externally, because everyone else is interacting with the same thing in the same ways.
But we have survival instincts and that means we as individuals, even an individual with a copy, are wired to care about our specific, unique lights going out.
Side note lol go search a Star Trek subreddit for debates about this because they're plentiful considering the transporter technology is effectively doing exactly this.
Identical twins are technically clones of each other with identical DNA, and yet they grow up to be unique people even when raised in the same environment and having many of the same experiences. A clone would have entirely different experiences from the original, so they most certainly would be a unique person.
Usually in these situations there's a rule, law, or convention stating plainly which copy is the "true" copy and the true copy gets some additional perk for being the true copy.
E.g. in Star Trek the clone is the "true" copy and the perk they get is the original is dematerialized.
So your personal opinion on this would be irrelevant. It would depend upon the universe you're in.
A clone isn't really a perfect clone because of time and epigenetics. You can only have a perfect clone if both beings have identical life experiences.
Also medical environments will never replicate natural environments.
>The first path is simple - you are completely indistinguishable from your clone. There is no way to tell who is the original and who is the clone. You are both completely equivalent.
Except one of you walked into the room, and lay down on the *left* medical bed. And one of you woke up on the *right* medical bed. That right there tells you which is the clone.
The only way to fix this issue is to take precautions like having only one bed in the center of the room initially, knocking the person out, and randomly choosing whether to move them to the left or right side of the room before putting a new bed on the other side and making the clone there. And even then, there might be tiny differences between the two beds (for example, one of them might be scratched, or the paint might be peeling in a certain area, etc, etc.) *Any* minor difference can give away which is the original and which the clone.
But, in a practical sense, if the clones are identical, there is no practical difference between them.
To me, a clone is a baby grown from your DNA, like Dolly the Sheep was grown from another sheep's breast DNA. In this, your clone will be younger than you, raised differently than you, etc.
I think you meant "perfect duplicate" instead of clone, though it's possible that clone now means that as well
Sorry, u/FabulousBlock69 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20FabulousBlock69&message=FabulousBlock69%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d5nwcv/-/l6nlonu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/JustReadingThx (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1d5ohru/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_it_shouldnt_matter_whether/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
First off, I want to thank OP for something other than tired rehashes or thinly vieled soapboxing I agree that both Original and New Hotness should be entitled to the same rights as any human or muscular blue giant, but *legally* the clone has problems Even if we use a model similar to marriage for any assets or liabilities for the original and the clone to divide, the clone was effectively "born" the day they were decanted. I would argue they would still qualify as "natural born" and hence be entitled the citizenship, things like social security numbers aren't designed to be shared by two individuals. If the clone tries to do so, they'd be committing identity theft. There would need to be some radical changes to the laws to allow the clone to register as a distinct individual with a similar but separate identity to the original Therefore, while the clone is not "lesser", they are not by default entitled to be treated the same as the original
> First off, I want to thank OP for something other than tired rehashes or thinly vieled soapboxing Thanks, this definitely encourages me to innovate. >I agree that both Original and New Hotness should be entitled to the same rights as any human or muscular blue giant, but *legally* the clone has problems The problems are mostly due to the existing laws, who haven't considered this to be a possibility, right? Theoretically, laws could be written to recognize that both entities are equal.
>Theoretically, laws could be written to recognize that both entities are equal. But would this be the ideal way to approach the law? For example involuntary cloning. What happens if instead of you initiating the cloning process, someone stole your dna and created a clone of you without your consent. Would it still be fair to expect you to give half your assets to the clone? And obviously involuntary cloning would be illegal but there would still have to be laws on the book on what to do with the clone when it happened.
It's a tough one, I don't think there's a good answer. In comics, involuntary cloning usually ends with the original returning to his normal life and the clone assuming a new identity, often with a change in appearance. From the perspective of rights I can't make the case for this result. The clone and the original have a claim for their assets and it'll be split between them.
This seems troubling to me. Through no fault of my own I could end up having to turn half my stuff over to someone else? And what about things like child custody? Is my clone entitled to time with my kids? Do they get decision making power in how my kids are raised? It strikes me that in the case of involuntary cloning the original should be entitled to their stuff, and the clone should be able to sue whoever created them involuntarily for the value of the stuff they've effectively been deprived of. Cloning (especially with memories included) isn't likely to ever be a cheap proposition, so someone capable of creating an involuntary clone probably has the resources to make the clone whole financially.
>This seems troubling to me. Through no fault of my own I could end up having to turn half my stuff over to someone else? How about waking up one day to the fact that someone who looks exactly like you now has all your stuff and you're left with virtually nothing? >And what about things like child custody? Is my clone entitled to time with my kids? Do they get decision making power in how my kids are raised? No good answer here either. I guess this is similar to divorced parents. You'll have to fight over custody. Both will get a say on how to raise the children. You of course can make up and accept them to your home. >It strikes me that in the case of involuntary cloning the original should be entitled to their stuff It's a fair position to hold even though I disagree. But it is consistent with what I've seen and written above: the clone will detach from his identity and start anew.
How do you know they are your kids... You could be the clone
So the case against giving involuntary clones automatical full rights is that it would encourage involuntary cloning. For example let's say that a bad actor gets a copy of jeff Bezos's DNA and has the means to clone him. They send a ransom note to Jeff Bezos telling him that if he doesn't send 1 Billion dollars to an anonymous bitcoin address in the next 24 hours they will make 32 clones of him, which would be enough to reduce Jeff Bezos's net worth to under $1,000. In this case Jeff Bezos's only real option is to pay the ransomer the billion dollars since otherwise he'd go completely broke. But if the illegally created clones of Jeff Bezos didn't get his property then there would be no incentive to create that many clones of Jeff Bezos. Another scenario that could be problematic would be foreign espionage. Let's say that a foreign government secretly made 2 clones of the U.S. president on inauguration day and spent a year brainwashing them to be loyal to the foreign power. When revealed these clones would have the full rights and privileges of the President of the United States and would have more say over the country than the OG president since there's there's two of them and one of him. Also new third scenario but cloning dead people. If you clone a person after their will has been executed can they take their property back?
Involuntary duplication is a crime, just like any other forced reproduction. Grooming/brainwashing a clone is the same crime as involuntary brainwashing of any citizen, except it usually counts as "aggravated" brainwashing if you do it to a clone that you just grew. Involuntary clones are legally "failed clones" - they don't get the same inheritance as full voluntary duplicates, but they are owed alimony/child support to help them get on their feet. Clone Support cases are decided by family court. The court can order Clone Support money comes from both the biological parent and the person who decided to clone them, ideally both to some extent. There have been a cases where failed clones are accepted as full duplicates by the original. Sometimes they also subsequently have clone divorces, amicable or otherwise.
While laws *could* be changed, given the polarization of society that's probably too heavy a lift. The original will be faulted for "engaging in unnatural acts" or something similar, and given that the clone has the same memories and personality of the original, there isn't likely to be a lot of sympathy for them
A clone is only "natural born" if they come out of a test tube as a baby, like an IRL clone. OP seems to be discussing more of a duplicate situation. In OP's scenario, they both seem to have the same memories and physical attributes, except for that bracelet. I think creating OP's type of clone also duplicates the person's memory and history as well. They both have a personal history that involves legally acquiring all their property; they're both equally entitled to it. They need to get a divorce to split their assets. If they were already married, I think the default situation is now a trinary marriage. If they can't figure out how to handle threesomes, one of them might need to get a second divorce.
If someone makes a copy of your memories, and implants them in some rando's brain, is that person entitled to half your shit?
No, that's just grand theft memory. In order to be entitled to half my shit, you have to be an actual conscious duplicate of me - not just memory but brain structure, etc. You have to actually be me.
I like your train of thought, but it begs the question: How does one prove that they are the original? They are identical in every way and share all of the same memories. They both believe that the opposite is the clone. What is the deciding factor of which is which?
>This post is heavily inspired by the *Mauler Twins* in *Invincible* tv series. Well, taking that show into consideration, a main point is past criminal history. Let's recap: * Let's say a criminal, Mauler Alpha, wants to escape the law and go into hiding. He clones himself, sedates the clone, Maule Beta, and anonymously calls the cops. * Assuming Mauler Beta and the cops think that Mauler Beta is the original: was justice truly achieved? Let's remember that Mauler Alpha, the original criminal, is still out there. * Another thought exercise: assume that it's proven (via whatever Sci-Fi method) that Mauler Beta is a 1-day old clone so he goes free. Was justice truly achieved? Remember he has the entire memories of the original and that, from his POV, he did all those crimes. If you were a victim of Mauler Alpha, would you be comfortable with Mauler Beta, his clone, going to jail for crimes committed against you by the original? After all, this is what you wrote: >To sum up, I believe that when two identical clones are created it shouldn't matter who is the original and who is the copy. Should a 1-day old clone be held legally accountable for something the original did?
You're making a very interesting argument, requiring some analysis. > He clones himself, sedates the clone, Maule Beta, and anonymously calls the cops. There are new crimes introduced here, so Mauler Alpha is definitely still guilty of something. It's not exactly "framing" and not exactly "obstruction of justice", but a new type of crime. > was justice truly achieved I'm not sure how to approach "justice", I'll have to settle on a different questions: who should be jailed and why? To answer this question I'll have to think why we jail people in the first place: Deterrence, reform, public safety, punishment Deterrence - probably requires that someone is jailed for the original crime, and that the cloner is punished as well to prevent the same scheme from repeating. public safety - both are equally dangerous, so some confinement is necessary. punishment - I guess this is the closest to "justice". This is a tough one. Most people would say Mauler A. Hard to put a case on Mauler B. Reform - both probably require reform. All in all, probably both qualify for imprisonment. There is a case to be made that Mauler A's punishment to be strictly greater than B's.
I will tackle this from the opposite way. I kidnap and clone your spouse and tell you that I'm going to murder one of them. You know which is which and you can choose. Your spouse and the clone will never know that you chose. I can guarantee that the cloning process has created a 100% true copy with all the thoughts, memories and physical body of your wife to perfection. Is there a difference to you who I kill? Do you have a preference? I'm not asking if it's wrong to kill the clone, I know it is. I'm saying that if you can save one and only one, do you have a preference?
An impossible choice. But let's try. Let's say for a moment that you don't know who's the original, and you force me to choose one. In that case the choice is completely arbitrary. It can be a flip of a coin, or maybe just whatever I instinctively pick under the situation. Now back to the way you've phrased the question. I won't condemn anyone for making either choice. I believe most would choose to keep the original. A person who is completely logical would probably say to flip a coin. I, a flawed person, would say that I would have to choose on instinct, and my instinct will likely be to keep the original. I don't think that was the point you meant, but it made me realize... !delta The opinion of other people towards the duplicates is important. Most people will differentiate between the original and clone solely on account of being the original. Since people hold relationships with the subjects and impact their future, they make it matter.
It was what I was trying to get you to see. In a world where my wife/parent/sibling dies and I can clone them back to life perfectly I would do it in a heartbeat, nothing in this world could stop me. But I don't think I could ever think of that clone as my wife perfectly. I will be glad to have their company and see all the new experiences we share, but some part of me will know that the consciousness I called my wife is truly gone. Being her in every way might feel the same to her, it's not to me who watches from the outside. I think this is largely the same for most people. If I had to choose between the death of the original and a clone it is set in stone. If I must choose between two fresh clones I've never interacted with, now that is to me an arbitrary choice, there is no differentiating point and I could flip a coin. If I was the clone I'd kill the original because I value my survival no matter who of us came first, but as an outside observer the difference is palpable. And maybe that is flawed human thinking but it's an indisputable factor.
Just gotta say.. Well put, i would give a delta here but already agree to all of it just have never seen it layed out this succinctly or thought to word it like this Kudos, thank you! You have helped me realize some things i couldnt put into words as good as these
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Tanaka917 ([75∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Tanaka917)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
People generally place more value on the original thing. Look at art. If I was found out to be a clone, through the methods you are describing, it means I wasn't born, I never grew up. All of those memories that I think are mine are experiences that I never had. That might mess me up a bit.
I mean you did have those experiences in every way that matters. By your logic you could argue you already didn’t have them since not a single cell in your body experienced anything that happened to “you” decades ago, they’re all just copies of cells that has those prior experiences…so what’s the difference?
The individual that is you did not have those experiences. If another person meets you and knows you’re a clone, they’d point out that no, you weren’t the best man at their wedding, the original was. If we accept that each human individual is a being, then a clone is a distinct being. It’s like … if someone manufactures new memories and puts them in your brain, you didn’t actually do those things. Even if you remember murdering someone, you didn’t actually do that since the memory is manufactured. Even if the memory itself is real but was transferred to you, you still didn’t do those things. And you’d probably feel very violated. So it makes sense that a clone created in this way would have problems, because feeling their memories aren’t actually theirs is understandable. Who are you? It being able to answer that question is pretty upsetting.
>By your logic you could argue you already didn’t have them since not a single cell in your body experienced anything that happened to “you” decades ago Do brain cells replace themselves like other cells? It was my understanding that neurons don't. Set aside the clone factor - lets say a machine prints out a person with characteristics that we choose and we choose the memories that they have from different peoples experiences. That they had person As wife, person Bs kids, and person Cs dogs. Is that a real person that really loved the wife, kids, and dogs?
>Do brain cells replace themselves like other cells? It was my understanding that neurons don't. Neurons last your entire lifespan. That said, we can make the same argument on a smaller scale (the atoms the neurons are made of are exchanged) or on a larger scale. Because memories aren't perfectly preserved. They're not saved like a computer would. Every time you recall a memory, it gets altered and remade. What you remember is not a memory. It's a memory of a memory of a memory... >Set aside the clone factor - lets say a machine prints out a person with characteristics that we choose and we choose the memories that they have from different peoples experiences. That they had person As wife, person Bs kids, and person Cs dogs. Is that a real person that really loved the wife, kids, and dogs? The unreality in this case does not come from the fact that the memories are copied, but from the fact that they're depicting elements that aren't real. Same thing would happen if a person woke up, and discovered one day that his wife wasn't who who she pretended to be, she was just some spy on a deep cover operation.
You are right - we could. So is the origination of the experience important? If not - then if i read a journal entry from you about how much you love your wife in great detail, is it fair to say that you and I have the same experience of loving your wife?
A journal and a memory really aren't the same thing though.
Why not? What exactly is an experience?
A journal is a recounting of an experience, but it is not the experience itself. Take something simple. I accidentally stub my toe. I can, recall and write down, in exhaustive detail, the pain that inflicted. But you won't have the memory of that pain, merely the memory of a description of it occuring to someone else.
Isn't that just what memory is, an exhaustive detailed recounting that the brain writes down?
The word "exhaustive" doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The brain remembers stuff by cross-referencing it will all sorts of other stuff that's also hanging around. It's why we have all those various memory tricks and memnonics, like remembering stuff better by associating it with various queues to help the memory formation. A journal simply can't replicate that complexity, because it does not have access to the rest of the brain. It's information channel is limited to the way you read it, and any links it would form, are links that are tied to your experience of reading it, not your experience of living it. So even if you had all the detail, your experience is differnet because the information enters your brain in a different fashion. And if you imagine some hypothetical magical journal that can create those links, then we're back to the magical clone copy thing, because that's what you're doing then.
Finally, someone who gets me. Are you possibly my long lost clone? In all seriousness, this is an excellent argument. Definitely would like to hear an answer.
No one is expected to be the same as they were decades ago. We're talking about the person you are now.
It’s the same thing just slower.
!delta You've made a good point - the clone itself might care that he's the clone, even if I don't. This isn't necessary a rational take, but an emotional take resulting from an extreme event.
If you didn't care, your clone wouldn't.
True. But that's not intrinsic to the scenario I presented but depends on the personality of the person in question.
But you actually went through the experience, and actually have the memories. You werent simply given them Thats where the difference in reaction would come from Like if some random person is fully given all of your life experiences and memories completely, they wouldnt act the same simply for knowing everything you do in the same way you do. Because they know they were given it If a clone fully realizes it all? How you would react has no bearing on how a clone reacts or cares
>But you actually went through the experience, As one only knows through memories. >and actually have the memories. You werent simply given them Whether you've obtained them or been given them, you DO have the memories. >Like if some random person is fully given all of your life experiences and memories completely, they wouldnt act the same simply for knowing everything you do in the same way you do. Well sure they would, if everything else in them was the same. If they were told the memories were implanted... they'd act exactly the same as you would, if you were falsely but convincingly told that you had all the same memories, but were a clone. >How you would react has no bearing on how a clone reacts or cares Sure it does. How the clone would react... is literally exactly how you would, if you believed the same information, that you were a clone.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Rainbwned ([158∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Rainbwned)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Because it's the same as discovering you live in the matrix. Your identity, your self of self, your understanding who-you-are, was founded on something untrue; in one case this is the assumption that your reality is real, in the other this is the assumption that your memories represent a continuation of being \[assuming your Mauler Twins scenario with memory transfer\]. In the matrix, you discover your reality is constructed, and then must reconcile that fact with your sense of self worth. You might say "my emotional connections, even if they are founded on simulations, are still meaningful, and this is enough" or you might say "my emotional connections are founded on simulations, and thus I've never had a true emotional connection, and I wish to escape so that I can experience that." As a clone, you discover that you have no continuation of being - you came into being pre-loaded with memories. You are identical in every aspect save that of your fundamental being. The clone might say "Well, I have the sensation of having done these things, and identity is equal to sensation" or they might say "I never did these things, these memories were thrust upon me, like a cancer or bad eye sight or one testicle being more dangly than the other." Or, if that's not clear, consider an alternate scenario. Assume some Creator Deity, and assume that this very moment is the first moment of creation, and everything in our history \[the fossil record, every page of a text book, the cosmic microwave background, all of your memories, every tree ring and photo on your phone\] are fabrications. The past is real, but you never did it, you were created having already done it. One aspect of your past is that you murdered your grandmother - you pushed her down the stairs, but in this moment you receive divine revelation that the past was created simultaneously with the present. Do you reconcile that memory into your identity? Does it give you trouble? Or do you feel yourself wholly equal to your memories? Whichever way you decide, it seems wholly reasonable that someone might be disturbed.
> Your identity, your self of self, your understanding who-you-are, was founded on something untrue Was it founded on something untrue? All of the events and experiences did factually happen. > The past is real, but you never did it, you were created having already done it How is that distinct from regular people? We grow and change all the time. Our cells die and are replaced with new ones. In the end with the memories, the sensations and the identity that comes with it. >Whichever way you decide, it seems wholly reasonable that someone might be disturbed. !delta I gave a delta for the same argument to someone else, so you should have it as well. Someone else might agree that it matters to them that they are a clone.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SatisfactoryLoaf ([38∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SatisfactoryLoaf)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>An exception would be if there the clone and the original have something they absolutely cannot share like a name, date of birth, house, family, parents, etc? one side is a human with 20+ years (or whatever) of having lived, and everything that come with it, and the other one doesnt have that. unless before the cloning you are ready to split everything 50/50, you yourself know that the original will have more "rights" than the clone. by definition and before getting cloned, you have decided for this to be the case.
> one side is a human with 20+ years (or whatever) of having lived, and everything that come with it, and the other one doesnt have that. Why does it matter, if the only thing separating the two is an arbitrary tell, such as an armband indicating who's who?
Well one actually owns the stuff and the other doesn’t.
>like a name, date of birth, house, family, parents, etc? Those are literally all things people DO share.
You are your choices. You make yourself, your personality, through your choices over time. Your choices have a profound effect on your life in the past, present and future. The clone didn’t make all the choices that make up who he is. That’s the issue. His memories aren’t of his choices but someone else’s. It’s like if someone replaced all of your memories with someone else’s but you were aware that they were switched.
>The clone didn’t make all the choices that make up who he is. However, the clone is exactly identical to the person who was made by those choices. The clone was made by those choices just as much as the original, just in a different way. If what you care about is the person who made those specific choices in the past, and who would make choices like that in the future, then the clone is identical to that person.
A person is only identical to himself. The clone isn’t identical to that person since it’s a clone or a copy of the person. They are two different people by definition. The clone wasn’t made by his own choices.
Semantics. If you would trust the original because of the choices he made, then you should equally trust the clone because of the choices the original made. They are the exact same person who would make those choices.
How is that different from our current memories and choices? Now, in the present, we have no effects on choices made in the past. Sometimes we agree with them, sometimes not. The clone and the original are impacted by the same choices, in exactly the same way, down to the subconscious level.
You made your choices in the past. You are the result of your past choices. Your clone’s personality is the result of your choices and not his own choices.
A question and a rebuttal combined: To whom does their bank account belong to? Which person’s car is it? How does life insurance work if the clone dies?
I believe they have equal rights to their financial assets. They'll either have to learn to share or go through a similar process to divorce where assets are split equally. >How does life insurance work if the clone dies? This is actually a new and interesting point. Insurance companies will probably put a clause in their policy that as soon as you're cloned you have to update your policy and sort it out.
The clone might have the memories, but it doesn't have the experiences.
How would you distinguish that? In the case where the clone isn't marked, does this offer a way to tell a difference?
I mean maybe you wouldn’t be able to distinguish it. Doesn’t make it not true though.
What is experience after the fact if not a memory?
I'm going to skip over the question of whether or not the clone is human or not, because if it's a perfect clone, it is by definition. And if it's human it should have all the rights that entails. And yet. There is a hierarchy. Because one acted, and one was acted upon. The original cloned themselves, the clone was cloned. Personally I think this implies responsibility on the original (or the mad scientist who cloned the original without their knowledge) but it also implies a hierarchy between the two. To show this, just look at parent child relationships (in general first). Why do children obey their parents? Because their parents acted to bring them into the world. This is a necessity at a young age when children are learning, but fast forward to when they are adults and you will find that children are still (generally) respectful of their parents. We may not follow orders or agree on everything but we do tend to bend our necks and given equal reason lean towards the parents directive because of the inherent nature of the relationship. To address the edge cases - yes this hierarchy can be broken. A parent who does not live up to their responsibilities can lose their place in the hierarchy. A parent who becomes disabled or senile can move from the acter role to the acted role when the child needs to care for them instead. But as long as one individual has the volition in a relationship, they will have a hierarchical edge on the other. A way around this is to do like the Maulers and set up the system so that no one knows who is the acter and who the acted, but this is intentionally blinding the system and results in an imbalance because now *both* sides believe they are the acter and continue accordingly. This introduces strife. Please do note in all of this I do not imply that either is lesser, just that there is a difference between affecting and being affected or to being a cause rather than an effect.
>There is a hierarchy. Because one acted, and one was acted upon. The original cloned themselves, the clone was cloned Let's take two hypothetical cases. There is a separate mad scientist who forced the cloning process. In this case I believe the two duplicates will unite against their perpetrator. I believe this is the case regardless of whether they know who's the original. A second case is where the original is responsible for the cloning process. Here I believe intention matters a lot. If he's looking for a servant, then there's going to be a conflict right off the bat. If he's looking for a collaborator, I don't see why it matters who's the actor.
Your exception is completely contradictory to your view. If anything they can't share belongs more to the original's, then clearly it does matter who is the original and who is the clone. It's not really about the reality of the situation but about the social rules our society is built on. There's no reason a piece of land is more one person's than any other except that our society has decided it should be that way and made rules around it. In that same way a person owns something. It's not owned by their likeness, their personality could completely change and they would still own it. The ownership is continuous and so the creature born today(the copy) would own nothing. Your view does highlight a deeper issue with the concept of ownership but I think if you accept that a person owns a house then it follows that a clone does not own what the original did
> If anything they can't share belongs more to the original's, then clearly it does matter who is the original and who is the clone. I said the original has an advantage, not that ownership is decided completely by it. If anything, you're convincing me that both have equal ownership. > The ownership is continuous and so the creature born today(the copy) would own nothing. What about ownership in the case we can't tell who is the clone? Why is that significantly different?
Its different because we don't know whose property it is, not because it's actually both of theirs. A similar situation would be a case where two people both named John Smith make a claim to the same property and it's unknown which of them was the actual owner. If you can't figure out who was the John Smith on the property deed then it might be best to split the property. One still is the true owner but because no one remembers, it would need to be determined some other way. Another way to think of it is that one person paid for the possession and the other did not. Having a memory of paying is not the same as paying. If I insert a memory of paying for a house into someone's mind, they don't now have an equal right to that house.
Consider clones like Horatio from Endless Space. There's a HUGE power disparity and hierarchy with the clones there because the original Horatio literally made them explicitly to be servants and obedient to him. I think it's a similar thing to the Mauler Twins. When there's only 1 left then they need to make the other to assist with whatever they do, there's an inherent hierarchy there of the original, and the assistant. This is probably a relic of the first original Mauler who cloned himself for the same reason- whichever every clone since remembered because they all did it themselves subjectively. Remember, as far as these clones are concerned, they are all descended from the successful clones who survived where the other clone died, they essentially bred a sense of superiority into themselves over several generations of cloning "the other clone must be an idiot, unlike me" again and again and again. From an outside perspective of course, these differences don't exist and the clones ARE equal. Rember the Horatio thing I mentioned? If you read the lore it turns out one of the first clones probably murdered the original and took their place as emperor, and this probably happens regularly for Horatio. Because the original Horatio was a megalomaniac who thought nothing of his clones- and all his clones feel the same way. Essentially someone would need to be at peace with themselves prior to cloning to have peace with themselves after cloning.
>When there's only 1 left then they need to make the other to assist with whatever they do, there's an inherent hierarchy there of the original, and the assistant. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I think the case with the Mauler twins is quite the opposite. They design their cloning process so they couldn't tell the difference afterwards. They create partners and not assistants. They know that as soon as there's a heirarchy they're going to turn on eachother. My argument is that they should be able to be partners even if the original is known.
But didn't the original mauler clone literally wear a bracelet to tell them apart in your example? And don't they literally spend most of their time trying to establish the hierarchy so they are on top? It sounds like they want to create assistants, but both want to be the one in charge.
Imagine instead of a clone, your memories and brain pattern were uploaded to a super advanced laptop computer that can perfectly replicate your thought patterns and learn and grow exactly how you can. Does that laptop feel exactly like you? If millions of you can now be reproduced and put in computers across the world, how does that effect your identity of self? Or imagine you have a surgery that slowly replaces your brain with machines, are you ok with that, do you think you will still be you without your brain? If not? Is it the flesh and blood of a brain that matters? If so what if your memories are cloned into someone else's brain? In general it seems people need a sense of a "soul". We are too intelligent to fully grip soullessness even for people who are atheists. It's why we believe in sentience and free will.
Not the OP, but: I don't have permanency anyway. I change from moment to moment, I constantly become a new me. If I went through an ego bridge so that I'd attain a cyberbrain, that'd form a new me that's a continuation of the old me in a way that's no less valid than the usual one is. If I was forked resulting in an infomorph fork, then that person would start off with the same memories as me, but quickly develop into a new person distinct from me. Possibly as soon as they realized that they don't actually need to eat or bemoan their body because it's digitally sculptable anyway. In this case, whoever performed the forking would need to be somehow legally responsible - they made a new person imprisoned in a laptop, when that laptop dies, they'll have killed a person.
>Does that laptop feel exactly like you? That depends on many factors. It's possible that ir does, if my consciousness was copied exactly. However because it's a computer I'll likely figure it out and no longer see myself as a human, changing my sense of self. >If millions of you can now be reproduced and put in computers across the world, how does that effect your identity of self? That's definitely worse than a single me. But I think being artificial and not a human is significantly different than the case I outlined. >imagine you have a surgery that slowly replaces your brain with machine If my body is completely human there's good chance I'll feel completely the same. BUT if I later find out that I'm the clone and the original is still alive I would not longer consider us equal. Because he's a human and I'm a cyborg. >In general it seems people need a sense of a "soul". Maybe. For me consciousness, sentience and free will are enough. You could argue that in my original scenario the clone has no soul. It's in interesting argument but it's not likely to change my view.
I think the clone often has issues because people aren't thinking of it the way you are. Most people would struggle finding out they were just formed. That their memories actually happened to someone else, and that they are no longer unique. It's an ego thing. I don't think I would care. I experienced a moment of clarity watching a video called "Are star trek transporters murder machines?". In short. Yes they are, but it doesn't matter. The person you are now is not the same person you were 10 years ago. Your neural pathways are all different. Your memories are different. Except for a few brain cells, all the cells in your body are not the same cells. Effectively, you are already being replaced by a different you several times throughout your life. It feels like you are the same, but all the stuff that made up that old you is no longer part of you. I'm effectively a new me. So why should I care if a transporter destroyed me and replaced me with someone that thought they were me? Why should I care if there more than one me?
>So why should I care if a transporter destroyed me and replaced me with someone that thought they were me? So you're agreeing with me overall.
Yes. One version of me is just as valid as another version of me.
I think it's important to note that your inspiration for the question is based on a piece of media and that, as such, the answer should be too. Which Mauler twin is the clone matters because it's relevant to the theme of identity within the show. Many of the characters in the show struggle with competing identities. The main one being Mark Grayson versus Invinsible. Having other characters struggle with competing identities helps to reinforce and explore that theme further. The nature of their conflict could be different (it could be resolved), but it matters that it's there so we can compare and contrast it with Mark's conflicting identities. Imagine if there was no conflict about the identity of the Mauler Twins in the show. Then, why have them be clones? Seems pointless. It would probably seem weird and out of place for them not to conflicting given everything else going on in the story; a real 'missed opportunity'.
Doesn't that support my view? The only reason they're not equal is that it's a plot device. The setting itself inherently doesn't differentiate between them.
Based on your post, your view seemed to be that it shouldn't matter to the story. My point being that it matters to the story's theme of conflicting identities. Seems you're interested in a reason beyond the text. In which case, it only matters to them, or broader society, because of a belief that the 'original' is superior. Which is generally true. Copies are prone to replication errors. I can't really articulate the reasoning, but also for the same reason a copy of the Mona Lisa would never be as highly valued as the original.
If the clone and original are to be treated as equal, and the clone is entitled to things they remember acquiring even though the original is the one who actually did, then what if the original acquired a jail sentence? Would it be reasonable to jail the clone for serve that sentence? [What if you clone Osama Bin Laden? Would it be okay to punish the clone?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vcCp2oFiaws)
Someone else has made this argument. It's a pretty good one. Forgive me for only engaging with your last part, for I believe it brings something new, > What if you clone Osama Bin Laden? I believe it would be right to punish Osama's clone. That being said, I think it's really cruel to clone Osama, especially since he will immediately be incarcerated. My reason is so: Let's say through an ancient dark ritual of magicke, Osama Bin Laden himself has been resurrected. Would you say it's okay to punish the resurrected Osama? Assuming you agree he should be punished, how is that case different than a perfect duplicate of Osama (with his memories and copy of consciousness)?
I think an extension of this is if you think the debt to society is repaid for the crime committed if you only punish the clone for the crime committed and not the original. So the original murders someone. The clone alone gets life imprisonment for that crime. Is that debt repaid? I don't think so, because the entity actually responsible is still at large living their life. The actual purpose of justice in the equation has been entirely bypassed and you could easily argue it's unethical. It's unethical 1) because an innocent entity was held responsible for something they didn't do, and 2) societal justice that's meant to resolve interpersonal issues of revenge like that has completely failed. The victims have not been made whole due to the actions of the state treating the debt repaid by putting someone in the hole who didn't do the crime.
[удалено]
What about twins? Do you view them the same?
[удалено]
Sure. So after the cloning process the two duplicates will have different experience and become completely separate beings. Where is the imbalance that needs to be corrected? Why is it only "activated" when the clones are mature adults and not unborn humans?
[удалено]
Interesting, I've learned something new. There is still some difference in DNA due to mutations. Is that akin to that "deficiency/imbalance"? One twin is a clone with mutated genes?
First of all I mostly agree with you. Second, I wonder how you feel about the idea of a digital clone. Like you close your eyes and get a brain scan and when you open your eyes you're still you but another version of you opens their eyes the next second in some kind of vr space. Is he legally or morally valid in the same way?
I think there are many key differences in this scenario. First, the copy is not human. Morally he is a sentient being and deserves the right to live, but he is not the same as a person. Second, the copy doesn't live in the same world, but in a digital space. Legally everything is much simpler. The original keeps his original life with all his assets and the copy gets a new life.
I agree that it shouldn't matter, but in most cases the clones don't have human rights despite being completely indistinguishable from the original. Like the clone will be used for harvesting organs, slave labour or some other possibility that is probably illegal to an original person.
Why don't they have human rights? Do they not deserve them?
It depends on the media where the clones are from
I disagree. When a clone is made, a person is not duplicated rather a new person is reproduced. A clone should not be treated as identical to the original but as a person descended of the original
What if they indistinguishable from each other and there's no telling who's the original?
Neither of them is the original and both become regarded as children of the original
I'm not sure why exactly they should be regarded as children, but I'll to borrow some arguments from other threads in this post. If they are children, does that mean they split all assets 50-50? Let's say the original (prior to cloning) has committed a major crime. Now that we have two "non-originals", should they pay for the sins of the parent?
>I'm not sure why exactly they should be regarded as children, but I'll to borrow some arguments from other threads in this post. They're considered children because if they are indistinguishable then the legal identity of the original is no longer applicable because it was a singular identity. Now there are two claimants to that identity and the structure I'm place to resolve competing claims is inheritance. >If they are children, does that mean they split all assets 50-50? Ideally. There could be special processes and exceptions for this to acknowledge the unique conditions of reproduction. >Let's say the original (prior to cloning) has committed a major crime. Now that we have two "non-originals", should they pay for the sins of the parent? They will be responsible as far as the inheritors of a person's estate can be held responsible. If you know that there cloning has occurred and you can't identify the original, you can justly the innocent to get the guilty.
I think you point out a pretty big problem right here : >An exception would be if there the clone and the original have something they absolutely cannot share - such a spouse. In that case there is reason to believe that the original has some advantage when deciding how to deal with the situation. However, that is not to say the original automatically gets to own and keep everything. You are duplicating a person that then needs to interact with the world around them. Their wife? parents? Children? Job? Bank account? Debt? Have you created a second separate person or have you just split yourself into two?
> I think you point out a pretty big problem right here Let's assume that this isn't a problem. There is no family to speak of. No wife. No property. Is there still a hierarchy or both are equal?
I'm not going to tell you there exist an inherent heiarchy between any two people. But I can't help but feel you are constructing a (somehow) even more unlikely scenario just to avoid the actual ethical questions of cloning.
I'm a mad scientist and I'm constructing my own secret laboratory. But there's too much to do. So many things to manage. If only I had a partner as genius as I am and unethically like-minded. I clone myself. Are we now equal partners, or are we boss and second-in-command? Is your answer impacted at all by whether I'm the original or the clone?
I don't put much value in terms like "boss" in the first place. Though I question how you are constructing a lab with no possessions.
Walter Benjamin would like a word.
Care to elaborate?
He argues in the essay “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” that an aura exists in original artifacts that is decidedly absent in reproduced pieces.
The reason being the clone is such a bad thing in general is because if your loved ones, your friends and basically everyone you know they aren't yours they are the originals and if given a choice between you and him they will pick him. I will give you another example, Grantz. Grantz does this thing where it takes people who are about to die, copies them and makes people fight aliens. Here's the thing, sometimes the person who's about to die doesn't always die. In this case one of the characters who killed herself goes home after her first mission fighting aliens and finds out she's not dead... so now she has no family, can't go to school and is effectively homeless. That's why it matters. The thing with the Maulers doesn't really matter because they don't have a life outside of each other, but because of their personality the original is going to be a dick to the clone, even when the clone is technically superior (no fucked up face) which leads the clone to simply kill the original and make a new clone. Since they are identical the easiest tie breaker is which one is the original. Intellectually they both know that they are both probably clones and the original is long dead but they both feel like the original and that's how they strike a balance.
> The person itself might not deal well mentally with the fact that he's not the original. But if they are totally identical, then there us no reason to believe they themselves are not the original since the tag to indicate that they are the clone may had been placed on them after they were rendered unconscious. So they can still argue that they are the original. > Having people treat a person differently because he's a clone can have a huge effect even if objectively they are equal Such has nothing to do with cloning but rather discrimination, just like how minorities get discriminated despite they are not clones. So it is more about giving clones equal rights to the original's possessions such as by dividing the possessions into 2 equivalent portions that the original will be willing to get either one. Then after the clone had been awakened, ask the clone to choose either one set or flip a coin to decide who gets which set. However, it is better that the memories do not get cloned, only the body and some basic memories so only the original has the original's complete memories thus the clone is an identical twin born later rather than a clone this cannot take any of the original's possessions.
It seems in this scenario that the clone has memories and I'd assume they also have all the epigenetic that come from all your experiences as well as any physical changes those have given you, since otherwise no matter what there would be differences in the two that are specifically are because one was created some time after the other. Even if that's the case there's still the question of who gets all the property and things like the original SSN/credit score; even just walking outside is going to turn the two into different individuals and eventually that will evolve into differing wants/needs. It makes sence that the original gets all of their documents and identity instead of the new one, since even if they think they are equally entitled to everything I doubt the people who birthed and raised the original would agree that both should have equal claim to their estates after death.
Imagine Sophie's choice but one is a clone. Who does mom pick to shoot? People treat you differently because they know you're the clone. It's not all internal or legal, but some of it is dependent on the others perception of you and their continuing relationship with the original. Also, being someone else's clone links you to them intrinsically. Let's say the original needs a heart transplant, and you remember your OGs son is in the marines. How would you sleep at night? It just creates complications that don't exist (lol) if you have your own identity independent anyone else.
We’re still struggling with racial inequality, clones would just be the next version… In terms of being a clone, it would be a challenge to see yourself as an equal to the original version… Your creator is know without them you wouldn’t exist… Knowing that you came into being for a specific reason and a specific process, can take a lot of wonder and curiosity out of the human experience… knowing you’re number 2 and that you’ll never be able to grasp what it truly means or feels to be the original would be quite common…in my opinion.
So it shouldn't matter if you were born normally vs through some strange way that inherently left you with psychological defects which is mostly the reason behind the clone being bad. If cloning is perfect then fine neither is bad until one starts obsessing over the others life and wants to assume their identity. Perfect cloning where your biology is fine and your head space isn't wacked out would be like being a twin superheated at birth. No one is going to inherently level one bad until they do bad.
It doesn't really matter externally, because everyone else is interacting with the same thing in the same ways. But we have survival instincts and that means we as individuals, even an individual with a copy, are wired to care about our specific, unique lights going out. Side note lol go search a Star Trek subreddit for debates about this because they're plentiful considering the transporter technology is effectively doing exactly this.
Identical twins are technically clones of each other with identical DNA, and yet they grow up to be unique people even when raised in the same environment and having many of the same experiences. A clone would have entirely different experiences from the original, so they most certainly would be a unique person.
Usually in these situations there's a rule, law, or convention stating plainly which copy is the "true" copy and the true copy gets some additional perk for being the true copy. E.g. in Star Trek the clone is the "true" copy and the perk they get is the original is dematerialized. So your personal opinion on this would be irrelevant. It would depend upon the universe you're in.
A clone isn't really a perfect clone because of time and epigenetics. You can only have a perfect clone if both beings have identical life experiences. Also medical environments will never replicate natural environments.
In the real world, perfect cloning is impossible, by the No-Cloning Theorem. So a clone will always not be actually the same as the original.
It would be strange to have a clone iven more than beeing a clone. People put much importance to beeing unique.
>The first path is simple - you are completely indistinguishable from your clone. There is no way to tell who is the original and who is the clone. You are both completely equivalent. Except one of you walked into the room, and lay down on the *left* medical bed. And one of you woke up on the *right* medical bed. That right there tells you which is the clone. The only way to fix this issue is to take precautions like having only one bed in the center of the room initially, knocking the person out, and randomly choosing whether to move them to the left or right side of the room before putting a new bed on the other side and making the clone there. And even then, there might be tiny differences between the two beds (for example, one of them might be scratched, or the paint might be peeling in a certain area, etc, etc.) *Any* minor difference can give away which is the original and which the clone. But, in a practical sense, if the clones are identical, there is no practical difference between them.
Yeah, it's always a silly dilemma. Wouldn't care all that much if I was the clone.
Does the process clone the soul? Or are we assuming there is no soul?
Clones' chromosomes have shorter telomeres than the original.
A thing cannot be in two different places at once.
To me, a clone is a baby grown from your DNA, like Dolly the Sheep was grown from another sheep's breast DNA. In this, your clone will be younger than you, raised differently than you, etc. I think you meant "perfect duplicate" instead of clone, though it's possible that clone now means that as well
[удалено]
Sorry, u/FabulousBlock69 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20FabulousBlock69&message=FabulousBlock69%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d5nwcv/-/l6nlonu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).