• If you die but have an exact clone are you dead?
    310 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CheeserCrice;36667082]I think movement is a little different to teleportation, seeing as your cells are not harmed or destroyed when you walk across a room, but they may be 'deleted' and regenerated in teleportation.[/QUOTE] Yeah but what is the difference? How is one carbon atom different to another? Why would my conscious care if all of my carbon atoms were suddenly new carbon atoms? And why would it care if all of my cells were replaced by exact copies of all the cells?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33907494]I find this to be one of the most interesting things to think about. I think that if your body is destroyed and a perfect replica is created, then they are the same consciousness, whether or not the process is discontinuous. I think that the mind is completely material in nature, so that if I can examine both minds and determine that there is no physical difference between them, I can't make any claim that they are different people. It's thinking about that which informed my opinions of the self, and not the other way around. The whole claim that the new copy isn't "you" begs the question of what "youness" is.[/QUOTE] What if the original body wasn't destroyed? If you had a replica made, would you still think the replica was you?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36667025]I think this is interesting too. I'm beginning to get the feeling too that it really doesn't matter. We could reduce the whole situation to utter simplicity and I'll contend that the situation could still be somewhat the same. Imagine you are person #1, standing at point A. You then walk over to point B. So now the question is, couldn't I say that you just destroyed your conscious by moving all of your atoms into a new position? You basically killed person #1 and created an exact copy of yourself, but just a tiny bit different, so you get person #2 in point B. It becomes utterly meaningless when you look at it like this. We walk around all the time, and our conscious also changes over the years, so it looks like my conclusion could be true. There's an infinite number of consciouses that are killed every second, they're just replaced by exact copies. So what I'm saying here is, that in a few seconds, I'm going to die and cease existing forever. But a new consciousness will take over, and that consciousness has all of my memories and thoughts so he will think that nothing ever happened. So I think my conclusion here is that waiting 5 seconds, walking 5 meters and teleporting yourself has exactly the same consequences. Yeah, but, what if you create an exact copy? [I](or instead of thinking of it as a copy, think of it as rebuilding the exact same thing, in essence repairing the damage.)[/I][/QUOTE] Yes but I know for a fact that I have only had one consciousness as I have experienced it. I cannot prove it to others, however others would likely deduce through similar experience that I have been one consciousness. The walking analogy isn't particularly comparable, as I move the atoms still stick together (assuming that all that makes us is atoms as I feel the truth is a bit more complex), however in a teleporter I would essentially be killed and then brought back to life. To be honest though this is a fairly difficult topic to argue as there is no real definitive answer to what exactly consciousness is, maybe there is something in the structure of the brain that we have not discovered yet, I really don't know, but I do know for an absolute fact that I am infact conscious.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36667220]Yes but I know for a fact that I have only had one consciousness as I have experienced it. I cannot prove it to others, however others would likely deduce through similar experience that I have been one consciousness.[/QUOTE] I might not be expressing my idea clear enough but I don't think you're following what I'm trying to say. If what I'm saying is true, then you would [I]never notice[/I] that there were consciouses before you that died. You would think that you were always the same consciousness, and that's because you have the same memories as the consciouses before yourself. Let's say what I say does actually happen, so person #1 is doing his business. For convenience, let's say he is the [I]first conscious[/I] of that person. At one point, all of his atoms are replaced. This means person #1 dies and ceases to exist. However, there is a new consciousness; person #2. Person #2 remembers everything that happened to person #1 except for it's death. This means that person #2 thinks that he is and always has been the same person as person #1. The same thing happens again and person #3 starts to exist. #3 also has the same memories so he does not know that #1 and #2 are dead, he thinks he [I]is[/I] all of them and that he always has been. So if my situation is true, then you would never notice it, and there would be no way for you to [I]"know for a fact"[/I] that you have always been the same conscious. Because you would never be able to notice it happening. [QUOTE]The walking analogy isn't particularly comparable, as I move the atoms still stick together (assuming that all that makes us is atoms as I feel the truth is a bit more complex), however in a teleporter I would essentially be killed and then brought back to life.[/QUOTE] What do you mean it is more complex? Do you believe in something supernatural? Do you believe in souls or something? If you don't believe in anything otherworldly, then I don't see how you can disagree that all we are is a complicated chemical reaction. And again, what is the difference? When moving the body, you have your body and then you move somewhere else and you still have your body. In the other situation, you have your body, then for a brief moment you don't, but then you do. The only difference between the first body and the last is that it might be made up of different atoms. They're still the same [I]types[/I] of atoms, for example all of your carbon atoms are replaced by other carbon atoms. Everything else is 100% exactly the same. The brain is exactly the same and it works exactly the same. [QUOTE]To be honest though this is a fairly difficult topic to argue as there is no real definitive answer to what exactly consciousness is, maybe there is something in the structure of the brain that we have not discovered yet, I really don't know, but I do know for an absolute fact that I am infact conscious.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Agreed very much. Thinking about this is pretty much frying my brain.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36667360]I might not be expressing my idea clear enough but I don't think you're following what I'm trying to say. If what I'm saying is true, then you would [I]never notice[/I] that there were consciouses before you that died. You would think that you were always the same consciousness, and that's because you have the same memories as the consciouses before yourself. Let's say what I say does actually happen, so person #1 is doing his business. For convenience, let's say he is the [I]first conscious[/I] of that person. At one point, all of his atoms are replaced. This means person #1 dies and ceases to exist. However, there is a new consciousness; person #2. Person #2 remembers everything that happened to person #1 except for it's death. This means that person #2 thinks that he is and always has been the same person as person #1. The same thing happens again and person #3 starts to exist. #3 also has the same memories so he does not know that #1 and #2 are dead, he thinks he [I]is[/I] all of them and that he always has been. So if my situation is true, then you would never notice it, and there would be no way for you to [I]"know for a fact"[/I] that you have always been the same conscious. Because you would never be able to notice it happening. [/QUOTE] Yes I can know for a fact, because I do. I can't prove to you that I know my consciousness has been consistent since that would require you to have experienced it, however I can most certainly know.
Yes. You, the original, would be dead. Your clone may be identical in every way to you; but as long as your consciousness' aren't linked, you are completely seperate from your clone. It's easier to think of your clone as an exact twin. [editline]7th July 2012[/editline] This actually brings up an interesting theory with Teleportation. (But that is not the topic of this thread)
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36667360] What do you mean it is more complex? Do you believe in something supernatural? Do you believe in souls or something? If you don't believe in anything otherworldly, then I don't see how you can disagree that all we are is a complicated chemical reaction. And again, what is the difference? When moving the body, you have your body and then you move somewhere else and you still have your body. In the other situation, you have your body, then for a brief moment you don't, but then you do. The only difference between the first body and the last is that it might be made up of different atoms. They're still the same [I]types[/I] of atoms, for example all of your carbon atoms are replaced by other carbon atoms. Everything else is 100% exactly the same. The brain is exactly the same and it works exactly the same. [/QUOTE] No no nothing super natural, however there are definitely things smaller than atoms and god knows how small that stuff can go and then there is also energy itself and the electrical signals. For all I know we could just be electrical signals in our brains in one of the lobes, I honestly can't say for certain since I'm no brain expert but it might be a possibility I guess.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36667524]Yes I can know for a fact, because I do. I can't prove to you that I know my consciousness has been consistent since that would require you to have experienced it, however I can most certainly know.[/QUOTE] If I had to guess I'd wager that my experience of consciousness is pretty much the same as yours. I just gave you an explanation for why you [I]wouldn't be able to notice - despiting feeling like there is consistency - that there is none[/I]. I already know that it feels like we've all been here all the time, but I'm trying to show you that just because it [I]feels[/I] that that, it doesn't have to be true. It's the idea that our experience can be deceptive. Here's another one: It could theoretically be possible that we were all created 5 minutes ago. 6 minutes ago, nothing existed. The entire universe came into existence 5 minutes ago. This seems utterly outrageous, but the thing is, we were created [I]with fake memories[/I] of our entire lives. So this means, even though we didn't exist before, we all think we did because we have memories. And you could say exactly the same to this thought experiment; [I]"I know for a fact because I've experienced it!"[/I] But the whole point is that if it was true, then your experience would be fake and deceptive, and thus not trustworthy. And perhaps most importantly it would make zero difference.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36667630]If I had to guess I'd wager that my experience of consciousness is pretty much the same as yours. I just gave you an explanation for why you [I]wouldn't be able to notice - despiting feeling like there is consistency - that there is none[/I]. I already know that it feels like we've all been here all the time, but I'm trying to show you that just because it [I]feels[/I] that that, it doesn't have to be true. It's the idea that our experience can be deceptive. Here's another one: It could theoretically be possible that we were all created 5 minutes ago. 6 minutes ago, nothing existed. The entire universe came into existence 5 minutes ago. This seems utterly outrageous, but the thing is, we were created [I]with fake memories[/I] of our entire lives. So this means, even though we didn't exist before, we all think we did because we have memories. And you could say exactly the same to this thought experiment; [I]"I know for a fact because I've experienced it!"[/I] But the whole point is that if it was true, then your experience would be fake and deceptive, and thus not trustworthy. And perhaps most importantly it would make zero difference.[/QUOTE] Well again like I said I couldn't prove that it was the case since what you said could happen, however as a consciousness I can most certainly know my existence has been continuous, even if I could never prove it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36667589]No no nothing super natural, however there are definitely things smaller than atoms and god knows how small that stuff can go and then there is also energy itself and the electrical signals. For all I know we could just be electrical signals in our brains in one of the lobes, I honestly can't say for certain since I'm no brain expert but it might be a possibility I guess.[/QUOTE] Okay yeah, I'm willing to believe that our conscious is perhaps a consequence of weird physical stuff that we don't know anything about, à la quantum mechanics. If that's true, then I guess it could be true that there would be some weird "link" between the conscious and the brain that would be severed. [I]But even then, if you say that our consciousness lies in unidentified particle thingies, then they would be copied over in a 100% exact copy, too... So it would [/I]still[I] be the exact same person...[/I] [B]EDIT:[/B] And yeah, I agree that energy and electrical signals is part of, if not the thing, that makes us us. But those would be copied over as well.
Here's how I think of it using the teleportation by destruction method. CryptoPrime steps into the teleportation pad. he gets scanned, then destroyed. CryptoClone steps out of the other teleportation pad, but remembers stepping in as Prime. Prime is dead, but only Prime knows that he's dead. Clone may be told that Prime is dead, but as Clone's identity is Prime, he would be unable to believe being told that "he" is dead.
Now see if it was a shell of my old self, and they took my old brain and put it in... would I be the same?
Basically, in a way you're still alive, but you're dead. What I'm saying is that your brain is shut off because of you being deceased, so you're not in a state of consciousness and are dead. You got your clone to carry on, but you're still dead.
Yes. Even if you somehow manifested an exact replica of yourself, YOU would die. Not the concept or existence of you, but just your body. I think.
This question is difficult to answer, the reason being that we have very little understanding about how consciousness relates to the physical world. Which in turn is quite unsettling since your consciousness makes up your perception of this supposed physical world. Looking at it scientifically there is no way to differate between you and an exact copy of you. And if put in place of you, the copy would think and act exactly as you would. Really it's no different than copying any object, say a book or a car. The thread title, and many of the posters in this thread, refer to [B]"you"[/B]. What exactly is this [B]"you"[/B]? Are you all suggesting the existence of a soul? This appears to be a concept few even think to question. First there's the issue of the molecules in your body and brain being constantly replaced. But what's to say that your the same "you" after loosing consciousness or even falling asleep? I think that consciousness and self-awareness in large part an illusion. Breaking it down it becomes evident that we really don't have any free will, and that self-awareness seems almost an anomaly in an otherwise physical and mechanical universe.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36667662]Well again like I said I couldn't prove that it was the case since what you said could happen, however as a consciousness I can most certainly know my existence has been continuous, even if I could never prove it.[/QUOTE] What do mean by "know"? You could believe your existence has been continuous, but you wouldn't know. It's like you're ignoring his reasoning. In reality, "you" only exist in the now. "You" weren't posting on facepunch 2 days ago, you just have memories of your former self doing so. Memories that are little more than synapses in your brain. If I created you right now with all those synapses you would still claim that you "know" your existence has bern continuous.
I have an identical twin. We share the exact same DNA, and were brought up in almost parallel environments. If I were to die, I would certainly still be dead.
Yes, you are dead. No, your clone is never "you". Your clone is another person with the same memories, personality, and genetics (among others). But it has a separate consciousness, and is therefore a [I]different person[/I].
If your clone was just a inactive body that your consciousness could take control of with some sort of technology that involves the two brains being linked together after you die, then no, you could still be alive in the other body. Take a look at this video, for example. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBftzMxDtIg[/media] At the beginning of the episode, you'll notice a "dead" clone of the protagonist, a.k.a Charlie Cooper, sitting next to him. After Charlie's head is chopped off around 5:04, his consciousness along with his memories and the information he received at the headquarters is sent to the body left inside the car.
An instantaneous moment of quantum entanglement would occur at the event horizon. You would exist in both states: dead and alive. The entanglement would vanish as you pass through the event horizon as you and your clone move away from it. P.S. You just read a cosmological answer to a metaphysical question. If you don't understand it, don't worry about it bro. :)
[QUOTE=newbs;36764224]An instantaneous moment of quantum entanglement would occur at the event horizon. You would exist in both states: dead and alive. The entanglement would vanish as you pass through the event horizon as you and your clone move away from it. P.S. You just read a cosmological answer to a metaphysical question. If you don't understand it, don't worry about it bro. :)[/QUOTE] No, what I read was a bunch of bullshit spouted out by someone who has no idea what quantum entanglement or event horizons are. And by the way, neither of them have ANYTHING to do with consciousness.
[QUOTE=paul simon;33872275]It's as simple as this, really. But now: Teleporter scenario, person goes into teleporter, he is destroyed. He is now dead and everything is dark for him. (Let's pretend that's how being dead is) His atoms are beamed to another location, where they are rebuilt to form a replica of the conciousness and body of the person that walked into the teleporter. The replica will now be conciousness #2, as #1 is gone. Conciousness #2 believes that it is conciousness #1, and nobody notices that conciousness #1 is gone. So basically, for the person that goes in (Conciousness #1) he will see the teleporter start, then he will cease to exist. The person that comes out (Conciousness #2) will be the same as #1, except he still exists and remembers everything before and after the teleportation. It's strange to think of, and I'm not entirely sure if it's the correct way to think. For some reason, I feel that it's impossible that conciousness #1 can be teleported without being permanently destroyed. But now when I think about it even more, I realize that our conciousness is in the end a physical configuration. It should be possible to send it just like you can send regular atoms, thus keeping conciousness #1. I love thinking about this.[/QUOTE] but if we create a exact copy(it's a physical configuration) of conciousness #1 without it becoming conciousness #2 would we then be two people how would that work i wonder how that would feel
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;36784140]but if we create a exact copy(it's a physical configuration) of conciousness #1 without it becoming conciousness #2 would we then be two people how would that work i wonder how that would feel[/QUOTE] It's far more likely you'd just have two separate people with the same memories [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=PowerBall v1;36705996]What do mean by "know"? You could believe your existence has been continuous, but you wouldn't know. It's like you're ignoring his reasoning. In reality, "you" only exist in the now. "You" weren't posting on facepunch 2 days ago, you just have memories of your former self doing so. Memories that are little more than synapses in your brain. If I created you right now with all those synapses you would still claim that you "know" your existence has bern continuous.[/QUOTE] Like I said, I can't prove I'm the same one, and there would be no way of anyone outside myself from knowing whether it was a continuous consciousness or a new consciousness that thinks it is, but I can most certainly know if I have been continuously conscious.
You would be dead. Your essence (Or soul because I believe in God) belongs to your body, just because there's someone like you doesn't mean your soul will be transferred to them. Yes, they will have your personality, passions, hates, likes, etc. and they will be exactly the same in every conceivable way, but it will simply just be "a different pilot in that one". Think about it this way, you have two planes, exactly identical, including all the flight computers as well. One crashes, and the pilot dies. However, the other one needs a different pilot. You can't put a dead pilot into the pilot's seat of a plane, right?
[QUOTE='[MWRP] Sherlock;36786629']You would be dead. Your essence (Or soul because I believe in God) belongs to your body, just because there's someone like you doesn't mean your soul will be transferred to them. Yes, they will have your personality, passions, hates, likes, etc. and they will be exactly the same in every conceivable way, but it will simply just be "a different pilot in that one". Think about it this way, you have two planes, exactly identical, including all the flight computers as well. One crashes, and the pilot dies. However, the other one needs a different pilot. You can't put a dead pilot into the pilot's seat of a plane, right?[/QUOTE] There is no essence or soul, it's simply just brain matter. Memories, feelings, consciousness etc. Unless they knew how to transfer memories and consciousness from one brain to another, if you had a clone with the exact same brain it would still be another person. Just with the same thoughts, dreams, memories, emotions. It would be neat actually, to truly see yourself from a third person perspective, you would learn a lot more about yourself.
A small thought - if a clone of you doesn't truly count as "you", then why does a previous version of "you" count? Everyone knows the body replaces itself every few years. All of the atoms that made you up 10 years ago are totally different. In what way could you *possibly* be considered to be the same person? If an exact clone of you doesn't count as "you", then who you were 10 years ago can't count as "you" either. At what point did you change from one version of "you" to another? The question is fundamentally flawed, I think. I've spent an awful amount of time thinking about this very problem, and the only solution I can come up with is that the question is flawed, and that the way we think about consciousness and identity is totally, totally wrong.
[QUOTE=Neon-Knight;36816520]A small thought - if a clone of you doesn't truly count as "you", then why does a previous version of "you" count? Everyone knows the body replaces itself every few years. All of the atoms that made you up 10 years ago are totally different. In what way could you *possibly* be considered to be the same person? If an exact clone of you doesn't count as "you", then who you were 10 years ago can't count as "you" either. At what point did you change from one version of "you" to another? The question is fundamentally flawed, I think. I've spent an awful amount of time thinking about this very problem, and the only solution I can come up with is that the question is flawed, and that the way we think about consciousness and identity is totally, totally wrong.[/QUOTE] Gotta agree with this man over here. It's hard to argue about this question when the life-experiences that make people for the most part is so crucial here, and even if you were cloned and those life experiences were not saved, the clone would be.. flawed.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;36817270]if you were cloned and those life experiences were not saved, the clone would be.. flawed.[/QUOTE] If your life experiences were [i]not[/i] saved then yes, it would just be a clone of "you", its own experiences could makes them out to be a very different person. If the exact brain structure [i]was[/i] saved, including memories, experiences, opinions, consciousness, then you can only conclude that the "clone" is you, and "you" are the clone. They are both "you", and "you" are both of them. Neither one is the "true" you, they simply both are. There simply is no other way. The "stream of consciousness" (as it were) would just split - and there would two branches. You can't really say that the clone doesn't really count as "you", because there's no possible test you could administer to tell any difference - by definition, there would be no way to tell which one was which. So how could you say which one has a "soul" and which one does not? Simply, it can only be that *both* of them have a "soul", and both of those souls are equally valid as "you". I understand my view on this is quite unpopular, but the truth is, in order to answer the question you need to reduce everything down to the purely physical. You must conclude that there is no unique "soul". There is no unique "identity", we are all just biological machines walking around, processing data and interpreting it. Ultimately, what I finally realised when thinking about this for *far* too long is that, neither you, nor the clone has a *soul*, the question asking "are you still you" is broken, because nobody is really "you" in the first place - nobody is. There is no "you", there is only your brain concluding that its own interpretation of data is somehow special, somehow notable, and somehow unique. You can make an analogy like this - if you had a computer, let's say it's called Frank-PC, and the motherboard broke. You took out the hard disk, and put it into another computer, with every bit of hardware replicated exactly, with every stored memory cache cloned. Does this new computer "really" count as Frank-PC, or is it just a copy of Frank-PC? Has Frank-PC [i]died[/i]? Has Frank-PC's "stream of consciousness" transferred from one computer to another? When you think about it like that, it's absurd. None of this stuff matters! What's the point of these questions? These questions are totally irrelevant, you're talking about the [i]identity[/i] of a PC! It doesn't have an identity. Is it [i]really[/i] the same PC? Who cares! You're assigning some mysitcal identity what is just a calculating machine. And this is exactly how I view these questions when asked about the human race. It's a silly question, with no answers. You're assigning some mystical attachment of "identity" to what is basically a biological data processor. It just doesn't make sense.
[QUOTE=Neon-Knight;36822555]If your life experiences were [i]not[/i] saved then yes, it would just be a clone of "you", its own experiences could makes them out to be a very different person. If the exact brain structure [i]was[/i] saved, including memories, experiences, opinions, consciousness, then you can only conclude that the "clone" is you, and "you" are the clone. They are both "you", and "you" are both of them.[/QUOTE] Very good I agree, that totally makes sense. Makes this whole impossible clone scenario sound pretty simple after all. Anyway, hate to kind of crop down your post but I want to continue this; say you [b]didn't[/b] die, but you had an exact clone made out of you at that point (most notably the brain structure, memories and experiences as you said), I believe from this point forward they would still be two different beings, albeit actually the same. Sounds weird, but it would depend at which age the two clones would be. If at the age of 20 or more, a lot of things would be the same about these two even by the age of 50. But were the two clones (other one being the original you that didn't die to differ from the thread title) at the age of 1-2 and also separated so that they would live different lives in different area of Earth, they would turn out to be two very different persons, albeit the same-looking, by the age of 20. Even the outlook can change a little, the other clone could get into body-modification with tattoos and implants, for example. Also only later I noticed you said that, "its own experiences could make them out to be different" so.. yeah, that kind of summarized my post lol
if your body was cloned, this would be the equivalent of having an identical twin with the same neurological makeup and memory as you. however, once you are cloned, your experiences would diverge for each copy. at creation your clone would technically be you, but from that point on it would become a separate entity due to experiencing a different point of view from you and, thus, forming separate memories.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.