Subject:
|
Re: Questions about the nature of property rights (was Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:14:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.{spamless}org
|
Viewed:
|
972 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> doubt. And even if mind-as-software thing is accurate, there's still
> definitely a distinction -- I didn't invent my mind; I just have it.
To expand on my late-night thoughts:
If the way we gain property is through "mixing of labor", or interaction
[1], minds can't be property. I don't labor on my mind, and I don't interact
with it. I am it. You might ascribe some sort of creator's rights to my
parents, but I'm not sure that that's a line of thought that'll be very
constructive.
Also, it's not necessary that all intangible things have the exact same
rights / laws applied to them. Think about software, music, databases,
inventions, money, and trade names under our current system. They've all got
different laws which apply to them. It makes sense to apply different laws
/ rights to minds as well, since even if hard AI would prove that they're
just software, they'd still be different from software someone has written.
(Does this become a problem if AI researchers are actually able to someday
create software minds? Probably not -- current thinking shows that such
systems would have to be grown and taught in a way that resembles biological
minds; they wouldn't be coded from scratch.)
But really, I don't think we're ready to talk about all of this yet. Can we,
as Larry says, stick a pin in it and come back later?
1. Section one in <URL:http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3467>.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
