My Clone, my property?

[Pauls' Revere]

Question:

If I have rights to my body, does a reproductive clone of myself become my property?

http://thelegalgeeks.com/2014/03/10/...spoiler-alter/

If the Republic recognized that Clones had intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, but viewed the Clones as state property, then the Republic sanctioned slavery based on whether a life was born or grown in a test tube. Alternatively, if the Republic did not recognize Clones having intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, then the Clones were legally treated like a machine or a domestic animal.
Neither option is attractive for a Republic. It was redeeming of the Jedi Shaak Ti to stand up for Fives with the statement, “it is simply the right thing to do” over his life and reporting to the Chancellor, even if her argument was based on the Republic owning the Clones.

https://www.wired.com/2007/11/united-nations-3/

Full-blown human cloning is inevitable unless the world unites to ban it — so if we don’t, we should be ready to treat clones as our equals, says a new report from the United Nations.
The report, produced by the UN’s Institute for Advanced Studies and downloadable here, is a well-meaning mix of idealism and blind spots.

[Pauls' Revere]

Does a clone have a conscious? and if so is it "artificial" in the sense that it was cloned in order to exist? Is reproduction nothing but attempts of extending our consciousness?

[Anti Globalist]

Does a clone have a conscious? and if so is it "artificial" in the sense that it was cloned in order to exist? Is reproduction nothing but attempts of extending our consciousness?

Depends on how the clone was created. If it was given free will then it has a conscious. If it was created for the sole purpose of following orders and not thinking for itself, then it has no conscious.

[Pauls' Revere]

Depends on how the clone was created. If it was given free will then it has a conscious. If it was created for the sole purpose of following orders and not thinking for itself, then it has no conscious.

I'm thinking created synthetically or lab. But interesting point, so the "how" it lives and learns determines its consciousness. What if consciousness is a spontaneous awareness? If a clone "raised" or rather "bred" in a environment void of stimulus would/could consciousness spontaneously happen? idk, just curious.

[Pauls' Revere]

I'm thinking created synthetically or lab. But interesting point, so the "how" it lives and learns determines its consciousness. What if consciousness is a spontaneous awareness? If a clone "raised" or rather "bred" in a environment void of stimulus would/could consciousness spontaneously happen? idk, just curious.

https://www.closertotruth.com/series...ousness-emerge

There was a time when there was no consciousness in our universe. Now there is. What caused consciousness to emerge? Did consciousness develop in the same way that, say, the liver or the eye developed, by random mutation and fitness selection during evolution? Inner experience seems to be radically different from anything else. Are we fooling ourselves?

[Pauls' Revere]

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/how-c...aterial-thing/

All the evidence would seem to be against the idea that your childhood memories of the pancakes on Saturday morning are a physical thing. The view that consciousness, in general, is a material thing is a conclusion derived from materialism (often called “naturalism”), not from evidence.
Recently, quoting an article at Chronicle of Higher Education, I referred to consciousness as a “bizarre” field of study. Here’s why, recapped: Human consciousness is easy to experience but hard to grasp (the hard problem of consciousness). People say and think unusual things about consciousness. For example, they may think that our coffee mugs are conscious because otherwise, there would be something special about us, which is not possible in a material world.
Another — much more widely held — view is that our consciousness, which we think defines us as selves, is simply the feedback from our complex nervous systems. Our consciousness evolved slowly from the more limited consciousness of lower life forms because it helps us pass on our genes. This “feedback” view does not, of course, require us to believe that coffee mugs are conscious because they do not have complex systems and do not reproduce themselves.
This “Darwinian” view of consciousness leads slowly but surely toward discounting consciousness as insignificant:
Complex and intelligent design in living things are not assumed to be driven by conscious processes. Instead they are thought to come from adaptive processes which accrued through natural selection.
If we are indeed “subjects of unconscious authoring” then continuing to characterise psychological states in terms of being conscious and non-conscious is unhelpful. It constrains the theoretical understanding of psychological processes. Furthermore, if all psychological processes and their products rely on non-conscious systems, then the idea that the brain has automatic and controlled processes needs a rethink too. It might be better to describe them as differences on a continuum of non-conscious processing, rather than alternative systems.
Such a proposal does not dispense with the common sense reality of one’s personal qualitative experience, nor with the previous findings of cognitive neuroscience. However, it offers an opportunity to reduce some of the confusion that comes with use of the terms “consciousness” and “contents of consciousness”. Both of which continue to imply that consciousness has a functional role in distinguishing psychological processes.
Peter Halligan and David A Oakley, Hon Professor of Neuropsychology, Cardiff University and Emeritus Professor of Psychology, UCL “What if consciousness is just a product of our non-conscious brain?” at The Conversation