You are more than the matter that composes you. Much like the same components in different orientation produce different things, your body exists in an environment, it has characteristics outside of its matter, such as its location in a certain time and space.
"You" refers to every characteristic that applies to you, because "you" cannot have different characteristics from yourself. You can't have a body with the characteristic of being in A having the same characteristics of another being in B.
The only way for there to be a perfect clone of you is for it to be composed of the some atoms, in the same time and space, etc. etc. The only for you to have a perfect clone is for that clone to be you.
[editline]6th July 2012[/editline]
Not to mention the simple fact that lines of consciousness are severed. When you make someone have your memories, you are not experiencing their consciousness, you still die and stop experiencing things, you just create some other consciousness equal to yours that you can't experience.
The waves that make up your matter are constantly being recreated, so really you're always a different person than you were a moment before.
To the person that said that, since consciousness is merely the cause of a physical event, 2 equal brains should share consciousness. I disagree because, if the consciousness is truly physical only, for two consciousnesses to be the one and the same, the 2 physical systems that create them must be connected physically as well. A link between connection must only exist with a link in the matter creating them. And it is possible to have those 2 equal brains set apart, not touching or interacting in a significant way.
Also, when you have a brain, creating another brain equal to it changes nothing about the first, so the first consciousness' characteristics shouldn't change (as it would by having the added characteristic of belonging to the second brain)
[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;36643463]Yes, because even twins aren't the same person despite being genetically identical. Reason being is experiences and lifestyle choices make you more you than your genetics.[/QUOTE]
Didn't know this thread was still alive. Anyway, I don't mean a literal clone. I mean it's same to the atoms, electrical impulses, position, and whatever else.
The clone would be me. It's not really a clone if it's not me. So I wouldn't be dead.
If the clone is an exact copy, to the rest of the world you will still be alive. However, I imagine it would not be possible to transfer your conscious, so in effect you will be dead while the clone lives.
What can you define as an exact clone? Is it only a clone if your conscious is transferred, or if it seems to the rest of the world as if nothing had changed?
I think the problem is that we think there is a self and a real consciousness.
Everything that makes us ourselves, that makes us conscious, is our memories and thoughts and perceptions.
Our atoms are replaced all the time, but this doesn't change or kill what we call our [I]"self"[/I], because the memories and behaviours are still the same as before they were replaced.
I think the 'problem' for me is when I think... Yeah, okay, my brain is what makes me me. But what is it that ties my perceptions to my brain? Why am I not experiencing this or that dude's thoughts, feelings and memories? Because I'm not that brain? Well what makes me my brain? I think this is an illusion. There is no [I]"I"[/I]. I'm not [I]"conscious"[/I] and I don't [I]"perceive"[/I], everything is just physical reactions, and one of the consequences of that is the illusion of consciousness.
[I](but why do i only experience this brain's illusion. fuck this shit.)[/I]
If you think something ties me to my brain, then teleportation, or a quick replacement of atoms, would perhaps sever that link. [I](This would be the idea that conscious #1 dies, and a new one is created for the reassembled body.)[/I] But if you agree that everything that makes you you is in the physical structure of your brain, then instantly changing your atoms would be the same as slowly replacing them.
As in, you'd still be yourself. There is no conscious #1 and #2. Only brain and reassembled brain. And it would be the same, living person.
[editline]6th July 2012[/editline]
Let's assume that everything that makes you you, is your brain's structure. This means that if an exact copy of it exists, and you plug some eyes into it, you [I](your 'conscious')[/I] will be able to see what the brain sees.
If this is true, you can die, create a clone and you'll basically just be back. Alive, same person, same conscious.
But the real noodle baker is this: What if you [I]don't[/I] die before you create the exact clone? What if you create 3?
Will you perceive 3 visions and 3 bodies, or will they be each their own conscious? I don't think they will perceive each other's senses, but then what? Then they [I]aren't[/I] the same person.
Again, I think this is because there [I]is no conscious, there is no me.[/I]
I'm a [I]"new conscious"[/I] every second. I'm a new thing every time my atoms are replaced. It's just that nobody notices.
[editline]6th July 2012[/editline]
fuck this shit
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36649308]I think the problem is that we think there is a self and a real consciousness.
Everything that makes us ourselves, that makes us conscious, is our memories and thoughts and perceptions.
Our atoms are replaced all the time, but this doesn't change or kill what we call our [I]"self"[/I], because the memories and behaviours are still the same as before they were replaced.
I think the 'problem' for me is when I think... Yeah, okay, my brain is what makes me me. But what is it that ties my perceptions to my brain? Why am I not experiencing this or that dude's thoughts, feelings and memories? Because I'm not that brain? Well what makes me my brain? I think this is an illusion. There is no [I]"I"[/I]. I'm not [I]"conscious"[/I] and I don't [I]"perceive"[/I], everything is just physical reactions, and one of the consequences of that is the illusion of consciousness.
[I](but why do i only experience this brain's illusion. fuck this shit.)[/I]
If you think something ties me to my brain, then teleportation, or a quick replacement of atoms, would perhaps sever that link. [I](This would be the idea that conscious #1 dies, and a new one is created for the reassembled body.)[/I] But if you agree that everything that makes you you is in the physical structure of your brain, then instantly changing your atoms would be the same as slowly replacing them.
As in, you'd still be yourself. There is no conscious #1 and #2. Only brain and reassembled brain. And it would be the same, living person.
[editline]6th July 2012[/editline]
Let's assume that everything that makes you you, is your brain's structure. This means that if an exact copy of it exists, and you plug some eyes into it, you [I](your 'conscious')[/I] will be able to see what the brain sees.
If this is true, you can die, create a clone and you'll basically just be back. Alive, same person, same conscious.
But the real noodle baker is this: What if you [I]don't[/I] die before you create the exact clone? What if you create 3?
Will you perceive 3 visions and 3 bodies, or will they be each their own conscious? I don't think they will perceive each other's senses, but then what? Then they [I]aren't[/I] the same person.
Again, I think this is because there [I]is no conscious, there is no me.[/I]
I'm a [I]"new conscious"[/I] every second. I'm a new thing every time my atoms are replaced. It's just that nobody notices.
[editline]6th July 2012[/editline]
fuck this shit[/QUOTE]
While parts of the brain may be repaired, their must be some consistency otherwise there would be a new me every few seconds and quite frankly I'm not about to deny my own existence.
Of course there is consistency. That is why we don't notice it. The structure of the brain, the chemicals, the neurons. All the physical shit that makes us think like we do and behave like we do, are kept pretty much the same. That's why even though our bodies are ripped to smithereens every couple of years and randomly put back together, we agree that we're still ourselves.
So if you agree that a 'consistency' means that we're the same person all the time, even though we replace all our atoms, then you're in luck when it comes to teleportation, since the same consistency would be kept even though the entire body is incinerated.
[B]EDIT:[/B]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36625772]Because it's still a clone and not the original. Regardless of how exact a copy is it is not the original simple as.[/QUOTE]
You say that, when the atoms in our bodies are slowly replaced, this does not mean that we become a different person because there is a consistency. But here you are saying that even if they are 100% consistent then it still isn't the original. Why does this not apply to us when our atoms are slowly replaced? The only difference I see is the speed at which the atoms are replaced. You're being [I]inconsistent[/I]!
To add to the teleportation issue: If a teleporter dissembled you and stored the position of every single atom and then assembled you somewhere else, you'd have been teleported.
Now imagine if you weren't assembled using the same atoms. Nobody would notice a difference, not even you.
But now the Teleporter 2.0 is released that doesn't have to disassemble you to scan every single atom. It scans you, destroys you and rebuilds you somewhere else. It would still be kind of clear that you were teleported.
But now if the Teleporter 2.0 malfunctions and assembles you in the target location BEFORE destroying you in the original location 5 minutes later. A similar issue was raised in The Prestige (the movie, spilers incoming) where this guy is teleporting by creating a perfect copy of himself across the room and drowning the other one. He says he never knows if he will be the one drowning or the one on the other side of the room, but if he can say that he has always been the "lucky one".
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36649639]Of course there is consistency. That is why we don't notice it. The structure of the brain, the chemicals, the neurons. All the physical shit that makes us think like we do and behave like we do, are kept pretty much the same. That's why even though our bodies are ripped to smithereens every couple of years and randomly put back together, we agree that we're still ourselves.
So if you agree that a 'consistency' means that we're the same person all the time, even though we replace all our atoms, then you're in luck when it comes to teleportation, since the same consistency would be kept even though the entire body is incinerated.[/QUOTE]
Well no, you'd have to put the body back together with the same stuff, making a new body would essentially just kill you and create a copy.
Awkwardly edited my previous post after you replied.. Sorry 'bout that.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36649735]Well no, you'd have to put the body back together with the same stuff, making a new body would essentially just kill you and create a copy.[/QUOTE]
Alright, so, that's interesting. So you say there's a difference between individual atoms then?
What exactly do you mean when you say it has to be the "same stuff"? I mean, when we slowly replace all our atoms, we're still replacing them with approximately the same kinds of atoms. But they're still different atoms?
So do you agree that one person is still the same person 20 years later, even though he has replaced all his atoms? His body is still made of the same stuff in the sense that the atoms are the same kinds of atoms. But they're not the same in the sense that they're the same atoms.
"[I]Cogito, ergo sum[/I]" ("I think, therefore I exist") said René Descartes once.
It would only be you if it retained your experiences and opinions.
You all assume that you're more than a bunch of atoms and electrical impulses in a bunch of states. Until somebody can prove that that's the case, it's safe to assume that clones are us.
I would assume I'd be dead and that Ekalektik_2 would be his own person, but that he would handle his life in a similar way to the way I would. Of course I'm sure it would depend on whether or not he lived the same way I did, meaning location, financial situation, social setting, etc. We're all products of our environment, so I can only assume a clone of me would be different if he was not at first introduced to my way of life.
[QUOTE=Jookia;36664717]You all assume that you're more than a bunch of atoms and electrical impulses in a bunch of states. Until somebody can prove that that's the case, it's safe to assume that clones are us.[/QUOTE]
It's not safe at all, it's massive and potentially dangerous assumption that could very well lead to your death.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36666024]It's not safe at all, it's massive and potentially dangerous assumption that could very well lead to your death.[/QUOTE]
Haha what, why would it lead to someone's death?
This is a philosophical discussion, it doesn't necessarily have to have any bearing on how we act. I for example am coming to the conclusion that we're all basically complicated machines and we have no free will. This doesn't actually change anything so I'll continue to act as I did before making this conclusion, I don't see how you can jump to the conclusion that thinking these things could lead to our death?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36666277]Haha what, why would it lead to someone's death?
This is a philosophical discussion, it doesn't necessarily have to have any bearing on how we act. I for example am coming to the conclusion that we're all basically complicated machines and we have no free will. This doesn't actually change anything so I'll continue to act as I did before making this conclusion, I don't see how you can jump to the conclusion that thinking these things could lead to our death?[/QUOTE]
Well you never know how technology could turn out in the future, brain replacement and all that. It's a dangerous idea that I dislike.
What has that got to do with anything? Sure, it has a bunch of implications, if it's true that all that makes me myself is the physical stuff that happens in my brain, then yeah it would theoretically be possible for me to be in a computer in the future. So what?
Frankly I don't think you should be discussing a philosophical and existentialistic issue if you base your ideas on what you [I]"like"[/I] and [I]"dislike"[/I].
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying though. I can't see why you think it is [I]"dangerous"[/I], nor do I get how brain replacement techology is related to what I said. Elaborate please?
[editline]7th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36643528]Not to mention the simple fact that lines of consciousness are severed. When you make someone have your memories, you are not experiencing their consciousness, you still die and stop experiencing things, you just create some other consciousness equal to yours that you can't experience.[/QUOTE]
I don't think this is a simple fact at all. Where does this [I]"line of consciousness"[/I] come from?
Doesn't the same thing happen when our bodies replace atoms, too? My previous conscious is killed and a perfect clone is created, who is currently typing these letters on the keyboard. In a moment, this conscious will be dead and a "some other consciousness" will have taken over. It's just that that other consciousness will be equal to mine, so I won't ever notice a difference.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36666580]What has that got to do with anything? Sure, it has a bunch of implications, if it's true that all that makes me myself is the physical stuff that happens in my brain, then yeah it would theoretically be possible for me to be in a computer in the future. So what?
Frankly I don't think you should be discussing a philosophical and existentialistic issue if you base your ideas on what you [I]"like"[/I] and [I]"dislike"[/I].
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying though. I can't see why you think it is [I]"dangerous"[/I], nor do I get how brain replacement techology is related to what I said. Elaborate please?[/QUOTE]
Well it follows a somewhat similar premise to that of this thread, for example you could upload your personality into a computer, however in doing so I would imagine that yo as in your consciousness would die, similar to how if you die but a clone is created, you are still dead but are simply replaced by an identical clone with a new consciousness.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36666730]Well it follows a somewhat similar premise to that of this thread, for example you could upload your personality into a computer, however in doing so I would imagine that yo as in your consciousness would die, similar to how if you die but a clone is created, you are still dead but are simply replaced by an identical clone with a new consciousness.[/QUOTE]
Right, but that's exactly what we're discussing. I don't think there's something magical that ties my experience to my consciousness, so I wouldn't just die and stop existing if I got teleported or uploaded into a computer, because if the copy was 100% correct, ostensibly my consciousness would be intact.
Just like my consciousness is intact every time my body is replaced with new atoms.
But if you're right and that some 'link' between my consciousness and my brain was broken, then indeed that means I'd die when I was teleported or uploaded into a computer, although nobody would know the difference. [I](Except for the dead me...)[/I]
But why should we take those consequences into account when this discussion is entirely theoretical? We're nowhere near being able to make 100% copies of people, so no conclusion we can make here could possibly be [I]"dangerous"[/I].
This is the inherent danger with teleportation, no one would know if the original person was dead, and if death is nothingness (which is a big if in itself) would it really matter? (this is assuming the 'clone' retained the personality and memories of the original person)
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36666917]Right, but that's exactly what we're discussing. I don't think there's something magical that ties my experience to my consciousness, so I wouldn't just die and stop existing if I got teleported or uploaded into a computer, because if the copy was 100% correct, ostensibly my consciousness would be intact.
Just like my consciousness is intact every time my body is replaced with new atoms.
But if you're right and that some 'link' between my consciousness and my brain was broken, then indeed that means I'd die when I was teleported or uploaded into a computer, although nobody would know the difference. [I](Except for the dead me...)[/I]
But why should we take those consequences into account when this discussion is entirely theoretical? We're nowhere near being able to make 100% copies of people, so no conclusion we can make here could possibly be [I]"dangerous"[/I].[/QUOTE]
My argument isn't that consciousness is some magical thing, I'm saying consciousness is the brain, you destroy that you're dead.
[QUOTE=CheeserCrice;36666922]This is the inherent danger with teleportation, no one would know if the original person was dead, and if death is nothingness (which is a big if in itself) would it really matter? (this is assuming the 'clone' retained the personality and memories of the original person)[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36666986]My argument isn't that consciousness is some magical thing, I'm saying consciousness is the brain, you destroy that you're dead.[/QUOTE]
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=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]
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=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.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
