The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Moonlit on December 17, 2008, 11:59:11 AM
-
For those of you who believe in some sort of after-life I'd like to know where you stand on this. If someone were to be cloned and that clone was raised and acted as a human, would they go on after their death? Since they aren't naturally conceived, could it affect whether or not you have a soul?
Another interesting one. If we were to take the memories, emotions, and thoughts of a human being and put it into a machine, would he/she/it have an after-life?
Edit: I thought the new title of this thread to be more appropriate for the discussion.
-
No to all.
-
-.- I wanted a debate. Not a three word reply.
Why not?
-
Because there's no such thing as a soul or after-life?
-
Because there's no such thing as a soul or after-life?
For those of you who believe in some sort of after-life I'd like to know where you stand on this.
-
Because there's no such thing as a soul or after-life?
For those of you who believe in some sort of after-life I'd like to know where you stand on this.
You can't have a debate without a view from all angles.
-
From the point after it is cloned, yes, it's life will be distinct to the original's from then on.
-
Because there's no such thing as a soul or after-life?
For those of you who believe in some sort of after-life I'd like to know where you stand on this.
You can't have a debate without a view from all angles.
You refuse to debate based on your view of the after-life. So there's no debate if you post.
Here, be hypothetical. If a soul or an after-life existed, would a clone or machine be capable of having one?
-
A clone is not a machine, a machine can have limited sentience given sufficient programming, I doubt so far as a "soul" being possible in this hypothesis.
-
I would say that until we isolate exactly what a soul is (assuming they exist) we would never be able to replicate it. If we can make a perfect clone that is the exact genetic double of the source then yes, I would think it would have a soul, because it should possess all of the attributes of the original. That is unless you assume a soul is something entirely transcendental and therefore can only be put in a being by a higher power. But no to machines one way or the other because they're artificial and designed entirely by humans, and therefore limited in attributes to what we're capable of producing.
-
A clone is not a machine, a machine can have limited sentience given sufficient programming, I doubt so far as a "soul" being possible in this hypothesis.
I never implied that a clone was a machine.
@Roundy: Even if the machine were capable of feeling emotions and acting humane, like say, Data or The Bicentennial Man?
-
@Roundy: Even if the machine were capable of feeling emotions and acting humane, like say, Data or The Bicentennial Man?
I don't see how a machine could literally be capable of feeling emotions. I don't see how such a thing could be possible in a machine without it being contrived by humans, so if you think that's what a soul is, and we could imbue it in machines, then I suppose we could artificially create a soul in a machine - but it still requires that we understand specifically what a soul actually is; otherwise we could never artificially replicate it. On the other hand most religions envision a soul as being something immaterial, and if that's the case I don't see how we could replicate it. At that point it would take an act of God to give the machine a soul. As humans we can make it appear more and more that a machine has a soul, but it would all be mechanical and the machine would only seem to act humanely and exhibit emotions; it wouldn't really have a soul.
-
I think that a soul in a more non-religious sense can be defined as one's personality.
If you can give a machine a personality, then essentially that would be it's equivilant of a soul.
However, I don't think that a machine could go on to the afterlife. I don't think a person can, either. But I digress.
-
I don't see how a machine could literally be capable of feeling emotions. I don't see how such a thing could be possible in a machine without it being contrived by humans, so if you think that's what a soul is, and we could imbue it in machines, then I suppose we could artificially create a soul in a machine - but it still requires that we understand specifically what a soul actually is; otherwise we could never artificially replicate it. On the other hand most religions envision a soul as being something immaterial, and if that's the case I don't see how we could replicate it. At that point it would take an act of God to give the machine a soul. As humans we can make it appear more and more that a machine has a soul, but it would all be mechanical and the machine would only seem to act humanely and exhibit emotions; it wouldn't really have a soul.
Let's say you're on your deathbed and this is a great deal in the future. A doctor has offered you two choices. 1. You die and 2. Your memories, thoughts, and emotions can be downloaded on a machine so that you can continue to live. If you choose the second one...are you really still alive?
-
I don't see how a machine could literally be capable of feeling emotions. I don't see how such a thing could be possible in a machine without it being contrived by humans, so if you think that's what a soul is, and we could imbue it in machines, then I suppose we could artificially create a soul in a machine - but it still requires that we understand specifically what a soul actually is; otherwise we could never artificially replicate it. On the other hand most religions envision a soul as being something immaterial, and if that's the case I don't see how we could replicate it. At that point it would take an act of God to give the machine a soul. As humans we can make it appear more and more that a machine has a soul, but it would all be mechanical and the machine would only seem to act humanely and exhibit emotions; it wouldn't really have a soul.
Let's say you're on your deathbed and this is a great deal in the future. A doctor has offered you two choices. 1. You die and 2. Your memories, thoughts, and emotions can be downloaded on a machine so that you can continue to live. If you choose the second one...are you really still alive?
That's a good question. I don't think so. Broadly I don't think this would satisfy the definition of life; more narrowly, I'm not sure that the downloading of my memories, thoughts, and emotions onto a machine really transfers the continuation of my consciousness. It's like Swamp Thing (a great comic that happens to address as its main theme this very issue, in a sense). Alec Holland dies in a fire in the swamp. A new being rises up with his identical memories, thoughts, and emotions, and initially believes that he is actually Alec Holland, transformed. Later it turns out that Alec Holland did actually die, but his memories, thoughts, and emotions were transferred into the Swamp Thing's form. It acted like Alec Holland, thought like Alec Holland, and for a while, thought it was Alec Holland. But in reality it was just a copy. That's what I think would happen in your scenario.
-
Because there's no such thing as a soul or after-life?
For those of you who believe in some sort of after-life I'd like to know where you stand on this.
You can't have a debate without a view from all angles.
Welcome to R&P, where there is no legitimate debate.
-
For those of you who believe in some sort of after-life I'd like to know where you stand on this. If someone were to be cloned and that clone was raised and acted as a human, would they go on after their death? Since they aren't naturally conceived, could it affect whether or not you have a soul?
Another interesting one. If we were to take the memories, emotions, and thoughts of a human being and put it into a machine, would he/she/it have an after-life?
Would an identical twin have a soul?
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
No, they don't. While the physical form of a set of twins may be the same, their mental and emotional reactions vary widely. If the soul is not a metaphysical creation of a higher power, but the expression of what makes one person different from anyone else, then twins would each have their own soul.
(Speaking as the sister of two sets of twins, (one identical one fraternal) I have to say they have their own souls.)
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
No, they don't. While the physical form of a set of twins may be the same, their mental and emotional reactions vary widely. If the soul is not a metaphysical creation of a higher power, but the expression of what makes one person different from anyone else, then twins would each have their own soul.
(Speaking as the sister of two sets of twins, (one identical one fraternal) I have to say they have their own souls.)
Twins act pretty much the same if they are identical and raised the same. My little brothers I can tell apart, but I couldn't tell you how.
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
No, they don't. While the physical form of a set of twins may be the same, their mental and emotional reactions vary widely. If the soul is not a metaphysical creation of a higher power, but the expression of what makes one person different from anyone else, then twins would each have their own soul.
(Speaking as the sister of two sets of twins, (one identical one fraternal) I have to say they have their own souls.)
Twins act pretty much the same if they are identical and raised the same. My little brothers I can tell apart, but I couldn't tell you how.
Watch them for an hour or so. One twin will be the Alpha twin, the leader. That twin will be the one that decides what they're going to etc.
Later on, (14-17 years of age) That twin will be more protective of the other and generally more out going. By the time they reach 18, anyone that grew up with them or was around them consistently will be able to tell the difference between them. I'm not sure how exactly. I thought it was body language and movements, but a couple of the others say it was language and word choice.
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
No, they don't. While the physical form of a set of twins may be the same, their mental and emotional reactions vary widely. If the soul is not a metaphysical creation of a higher power, but the expression of what makes one person different from anyone else, then twins would each have their own soul.
(Speaking as the sister of two sets of twins, (one identical one fraternal) I have to say they have their own souls.)
Twins act pretty much the same if they are identical and raised the same. My little brothers I can tell apart, but I couldn't tell you how.
Watch them for an hour or so. One twin will be the Alpha twin, the leader. That twin will be the one that decides what they're going to etc.
Later on, (14-17 years of age) That twin will be more protective of the other and generally more out going. By the time they reach 18, anyone that grew up with them or was around them consistently will be able to tell the difference between them. I'm not sure how exactly. I thought it was body language and movements, but a couple of the others say it was language and word choice.
You're talking about normal human behavior there. The fact is, they tend to go there separate ways or just end up in the same place. Not the type of twins that go everywhere together. One is easily more aggressive but he is also the one that baaaws easier (gets mad about the other one not listening). The less aggressive one makes his own decisions and tends to take the other one out if he tries to tell him what to do.
They beat up a freshmen when they were in the 3rd grade though. It was hilarious.
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
No, they don't. While the physical form of a set of twins may be the same, their mental and emotional reactions vary widely. If the soul is not a metaphysical creation of a higher power, but the expression of what makes one person different from anyone else, then twins would each have their own soul.
(Speaking as the sister of two sets of twins, (one identical one fraternal) I have to say they have their own souls.)
Twins act pretty much the same if they are identical and raised the same. My little brothers I can tell apart, but I couldn't tell you how.
Watch them for an hour or so. One twin will be the Alpha twin, the leader. That twin will be the one that decides what they're going to etc.
Later on, (14-17 years of age) That twin will be more protective of the other and generally more out going. By the time they reach 18, anyone that grew up with them or was around them consistently will be able to tell the difference between them. I'm not sure how exactly. I thought it was body language and movements, but a couple of the others say it was language and word choice.
You're talking about normal human behavior there. The fact is, they tend to go there separate ways or just end up in the same place. Not the type of twins that go everywhere together. One is easily more aggressive but he is also the one that baaaws easier (gets mad about the other one not listening). The less aggressive one makes his own decisions and tends to take the other one out if he tries to tell him what to do.
They beat up a freshmen when they were in the 3rd grade though. It was hilarious.
True. Normal human behavior. If they were sharing a soul, (Which was where we started all this.) They would not have those differences. They would be absolutely alike even in personality and emotional actions.
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
No, they don't. While the physical form of a set of twins may be the same, their mental and emotional reactions vary widely. If the soul is not a metaphysical creation of a higher power, but the expression of what makes one person different from anyone else, then twins would each have their own soul.
(Speaking as the sister of two sets of twins, (one identical one fraternal) I have to say they have their own souls.)
Twins act pretty much the same if they are identical and raised the same. My little brothers I can tell apart, but I couldn't tell you how.
Watch them for an hour or so. One twin will be the Alpha twin, the leader. That twin will be the one that decides what they're going to etc.
Later on, (14-17 years of age) That twin will be more protective of the other and generally more out going. By the time they reach 18, anyone that grew up with them or was around them consistently will be able to tell the difference between them. I'm not sure how exactly. I thought it was body language and movements, but a couple of the others say it was language and word choice.
You're talking about normal human behavior there. The fact is, they tend to go there separate ways or just end up in the same place. Not the type of twins that go everywhere together. One is easily more aggressive but he is also the one that baaaws easier (gets mad about the other one not listening). The less aggressive one makes his own decisions and tends to take the other one out if he tries to tell him what to do.
They beat up a freshmen when they were in the 3rd grade though. It was hilarious.
True. Normal human behavior. If they were sharing a soul, (Which was where we started all this.) They would not have those differences. They would be absolutely alike even in personality and emotional actions.
I think defining the word soul would be important here, I think that people are affected by life experiences.
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
I was an identical twin, and I can assure you that I didn't get a soul.
-
That's an interesting issue. Identical twins are only one fertilized egg from the start, then split into two after a while. Do they only share a soul?
I was an identical twin, and I can assure you that I didn't get a soul.
We like you anyways masterchief. was an identical twin? story there?
-
We like you anyways masterchief. was an identical twin? story there?
He died when we were 3 1/2 months old. SIDS.
-
Damn.
-
Let's say you're on your deathbed and this is a great deal in the future. A doctor has offered you two choices. 1. You die and 2. Your memories, thoughts, and emotions can be downloaded on a machine so that you can continue to live. If you choose the second one...are you really still alive?
I'd have to say no, because, we are talking about one's consciousness. I think a new consciousness would begin, and the old "you" would die. This is because, when you look at it, it's not a "transfer" but a destructive copy process. All the attributes of your consciousness are first duplicated, then the original is destroyed. You would see the machine whir to life from your bed, and then the lights would go out.
On a similar note - I wouldn't step onto a star-trek transporter either. I am pretty sure I'd "die" and a doppelganger would take my place at the other location. The copy would be sure the transporter worked, unable to tell it's consciousness only began that second, and decide they are entirely safe and don't interfere with the continuity of a conscious being's experience, but that would be an illusion.
That.... or all continuity of consciousness is an illusion - for all I know the individual life-cycle of consciousness only exists for a millisecond, or until one falls asleep... no way to know for sure. Not being able to know - I think I'd play it safe.
Another question: Your friend who saved your life once is dying, and gets cloned and has his consciousness transferred. Before the original is destroyed, someone busts into the room and says they have a cure that will let him live in perfect health, but with a 10% of relapse. You, him, his clone all go rock climbing, and due to an accident, you can save the original or the clone. Which do you save, and does it matter?
-
Another question: Your friend who saved your life once is dying, and gets cloned and has his consciousness transferred. Before the original is destroyed, someone busts into the room and says they have a cure that will let him live in perfect health, but with a 10% of relapse. You, him, his clone all go rock climbing, and due to an accident, you can save the original or the clone. Which do you save, and does it matter?
That is an interesting one. I don't know. How would I know who the clone was and who the original was? Would the clone have a different personality or wear something specific so that I know who is who? It would be incredibly difficult to let one of them die either way. I'd have to see the look on their face as they've realized I haven't chosen to save them. That would affect me greatly.
-
Let's say you're on your deathbed and this is a great deal in the future. A doctor has offered you two choices. 1. You die and 2. Your memories, thoughts, and emotions can be downloaded on a machine so that you can continue to live. If you choose the second one...are you really still alive?
I'd have to say no, because, we are talking about one's consciousness. I think a new consciousness would begin, and the old "you" would die. This is because, when you look at it, it's not a "transfer" but a destructive copy process. All the attributes of your consciousness are first duplicated, then the original is destroyed. You would see the machine whir to life from your bed, and then the lights would go out.
On a similar note - I wouldn't step onto a star-trek transporter either. I am pretty sure I'd "die" and a doppelganger would take my place at the other location. The copy would be sure the transporter worked, unable to tell it's consciousness only began that second, and decide they are entirely safe and don't interfere with the continuity of a conscious being's experience, but that would be an illusion.
That.... or all continuity of consciousness is an illusion - for all I know the individual life-cycle of consciousness only exists for a millisecond, or until one falls asleep... no way to know for sure. Not being able to know - I think I'd play it safe.
Another question: Your friend who saved your life once is dying, and gets cloned and has his consciousness transferred. Before the original is destroyed, someone busts into the room and says they have a cure that will let him live in perfect health, but with a 10% of relapse. You, him, his clone all go rock climbing, and due to an accident, you can save the original or the clone. Which do you save, and does it matter?
Is the original destroyed? When I move software, I have two choices, copy it to a new location or simply move it to that location. If your thought patterns and other mental processes are moved rather than copied, you would still be you. Now, if the soul is a metaphysical bit that requires some sort of higher power to create or manipulate, you would no longer be you. If on the other hand, the soul is the aggregate of all of your experiences, the mental extension of your life, then you would still be you after being put in the machine.
(I don't think they can make a computer that is as complex as the brain or store a person in one, but that was not the focus of that question.)
About the Star Trek transporter.... I wouldn't get on one either, but going by the Canon facts, it's safe. You are broken down into your component parts and moved to a new location where you are reassembled according to the map made as you were disassembled. No different than moving a file in a computer.
I think continuity of consciousness is real, for a healthy human. Even when you are sleeping, you still hear and absorb input from your surroundings. Only when you lose contact with everything around you, IE. Blackouts, comas, extremely high fevers, do you lose that continuity. Perhaps that is why some people come out of experiences like that with severe personality changes.
In your climbing question, I would save my friend. He is known to me, and we have history. The clone is someone I just met and may or may not mean anything to me at this time. It does matter. The clone may remember everything my friend does, but since he awoke, he has been having experiences that make him different. He may be very close to my friend, but he is not the same. Plus, my friend has lived through a life threatening illness that I was there for, and that would change him even more. as well as bringing us closer together than the being that doesn't remember that.
Plus, my friend is the one who saved my life and I owe that person, not the fruit of his loins or whatever a clone would be considered.
-
Is the original destroyed? When I move software, I have two choices, copy it to a new location or simply move it to that location. If your thought patterns and other mental processes are moved rather than copied, you would still be you. Now, if the soul is a metaphysical bit that requires some sort of higher power to create or manipulate, you would no longer be you. If on the other hand, the soul is the aggregate of all of your experiences, the mental extension of your life, then you would still be you after being put in the machine.
(I don't think they can make a computer that is as complex as the brain or store a person in one, but that was not the focus of that question.)
About the Star Trek transporter.... I wouldn't get on one either, but going by the Canon facts, it's safe. You are broken down into your component parts and moved to a new location where you are reassembled according to the map made as you were disassembled. No different than moving a file in a computer.
The thing is, when you move the software, if it is from one drive to another, bits are written to the destination drive, and then deleted from the original drive after the fact. (technically speaking, the original file is 'unlinked' so it is no longer considered protected in-use space, but it doesn't get erased until a new file buzzes over those bits with new data...but it does effectively end up deleted at some point)
If that file had consciousness, then it would observe that odd feeling of having all it's bits read, then it's pattern of bits overwritten in such a way that destroys the pattern, and if the pattern is what creates the consciousness, then obliterate it's consciousness in the process.
All 'move' is in terms of computer files, is a copy with a post-op delete of the original. This only varies when you move files within the same hard drive, in which case only the directory meta data is modified.
I think continuity of consciousness is real, for a healthy human. Even when you are sleeping, you still hear and absorb input from your surroundings. Only when you lose contact with everything around you, IE. Blackouts, comas, extremely high fevers, do you lose that continuity. Perhaps that is why some people come out of experiences like that with severe personality changes.
In your climbing question, I would save my friend. He is known to me, and we have history. The clone is someone I just met and may or may not mean anything to me at this time. It does matter. The clone may remember everything my friend does, but since he awoke, he has been having experiences that make him different. He may be very close to my friend, but he is not the same. Plus, my friend has lived through a life threatening illness that I was there for, and that would change him even more. as well as bringing us closer together than the being that doesn't remember that.
Plus, my friend is the one who saved my life and I owe that person, not the fruit of his loins or whatever a clone would be considered.
I have to agree with you 100% here. For me, the way I see it is "the individual looking out from behind that set of eyes" was there when they saved my life, the clone has the experience, and could not experientially know they are not the original - but they still aren't.
-
Another question: Your friend who saved your life once is dying, and gets cloned and has his consciousness transferred. Before the original is destroyed, someone busts into the room and says they have a cure that will let him live in perfect health, but with a 10% of relapse. You, him, his clone all go rock climbing, and due to an accident, you can save the original or the clone. Which do you save, and does it matter?
That is an interesting one. I don't know. How would I know who the clone was and who the original was? Would the clone have a different personality or wear something specific so that I know who is who? It would be incredibly difficult to let one of them die either way. I'd have to see the look on their face as they've realized I haven't chosen to save them. That would affect me greatly.
It is kind of a harsh question I guess, and that is a good answer.
I never actually answered your original question: I would let myself be downloaded into the computer, but I would see that as an entity "patterned on me" and not myself being transferred. I am pretty partial to my goals and views, and don't plan to have children (which I don't see as a continuation of one's own will anyway) so it would be a way to allow my work to continue after I am gone, but not extend my consciousness specifically.
-
For those of you who believe in some sort of after-life I'd like to know where you stand on this. If someone were to be cloned and that clone was raised and acted as a human, would they go on after their death? Since they aren't naturally conceived, could it affect whether or not you have a soul?
Another interesting one. If we were to take the memories, emotions, and thoughts of a human being and put it into a machine, would he/she/it have an after-life?
Very hard to say, depends on your definition of a soul, or "the" definition of a soul.
-
I really used the word soul due to a lack of a better word. When I say soul I mean your consciousness. It all stemmed from an argument I had with my uncle on whether or not a person is actually still alive when they are copied and placed into another body or machine. To me, you disappear when your orginal body dies and what's left is merely a copy like a video of you would have. It's not actually you continuing.
-
I really used the word soul due to a lack of a better word. When I say soul I mean your consciousness. It all stemmed from an argument I had with my uncle on whether or not a person is actually still alive when they are copied and placed into another body or machine. To me, you disappear when your orginal body dies and what's left is merely a copy like a video of you would have. It's not actually you continuing.
By that definition I would have to say that yes a clone does have a soul, because they are conscious (aware). As for you second point, I believe a copy of yourself would be an entirely separate entity. Both the original and the copy have their own identities at that point and ability to take separate paths, they are not in any way linked to each other. Therefore if your mind was to be copied into another body, and your original self was destroyed. Then you are dead, the copy of you is a separate entity that retains your thoughts, memories and experiences.
Sorry, kinda depressing huh? In the end I do not think we were meant to be immortal in the sense of continued existence.
-
I really used the word soul due to a lack of a better word. When I say soul I mean your consciousness. It all stemmed from an argument I had with my uncle on whether or not a person is actually still alive when they are copied and placed into another body or machine. To me, you disappear when your orginal body dies and what's left is merely a copy like a video of you would have. It's not actually you continuing.
By that definition I would have to say that yes a clone does have a soul, because they are conscious (aware). As for you second point, I believe a copy of yourself would be an entirely separate entity. Both the original and the copy have their own identities at that point and ability to take separate paths, they are not in any way linked to each other. Therefore if your mind was to be copied into another body, and your original self was destroyed. Then you are dead, the copy of you is a separate entity that retains your thoughts, memories and experiences.
Sorry, kinda depressing huh? In the end I do not think we were meant to be immortal in the sense of continued existence.
If your Soul/Spirit/whatever you call it is the bits of you that make you you... your thoughts, conscious being emotions etc, why wouldn't you go with them into the new physical shell?
We already know that you will remain you no matter what breakages happen to the physical shell.
You can lose your arms and still be you.
You can lose your legs and still be you.
you can get any organ in your body saving only the brain transplanted and still be you.
So, either the Soul/Spirit/Whatever it is is based in the brain or it has a metaphysical being that does not depend on the shell.
In either case, if it is only the sum of those mental processes that make you different from the next meat shell, why wouldn't it go with you?
And, if it has a metaphysical being outside the meat shell, wouldn't it go where your mind goes, that being the only bit of you that can't be replaced with someone else's bits?
Sudden last minute thought: If/When science gets to the point of being able to transplant a brain, which side is the donor? The brain, or the body?
-
Sudden last minute thought: If/When science gets to the point of being able to transplant a brain, which side is the donor? The brain, or the body?
This one made me go "hmmmmm". That's a good question. I'll try to answer later.
-
In either case, if it is only the sum of those mental processes that make you different from the next meat shell, why wouldn't it go with you?
And, if it has a metaphysical being outside the meat shell, wouldn't it go where your mind goes, that being the only bit of you that can't be replaced with someone else's bits?
In the case of copying the mind, then I think it is an entirely separate being that is created, however if you were to take your mind and put it in another body, then it would still be your soul.
If your brain was copied (but otherwise not harmed), then nothing has really changed for the original host. Whatever receives the copy would be a separate being IMO.
This actually came up with theoretical transporters (in the startrek use of the word) on a History Channel program I was watching. Transportation is theoretically possible if we could scan and copy every particle in a persons body, and recreate it somewhere else. The problem is the original body is still existent and you have only created a copy of that body, the solution would then be to disintegrate (kill) the original body so only the copy is left. If it were me being "transported", during the scanning and copying process I would not feel any difference, I am really not be transported. After the process is done I am then disintegrated, and in my opinion some other being with my memories and likeness continue on. All that happens to me is I get to be disintegrated, which SUCKS!
Sudden last minute thought: If/When science gets to the point of being able to transplant a brain, which side is the donor? The brain, or the body?
hmmm....
<--strokes beard
-
Your consciousness is in your brain. Even though you copied your memories, thoughts, and what not, it's not really you who is copied to the machine or another body.
To keep your consciousness (soul) alive after the "copy" or "move", you'll have to have the exact same brain. The variables are so big that this is highly unlikely. Think about this: Every human beeing is unique because you can't see out of anyone elses eyes. This is your own and only consciousness, and you don't share it with anyone else. This would also apply to twins i think.
The brain is unique in its composition, and this is essentially all that is you, in my humble opinion.
Merry christmas everybody! ;D
-
No two people (identical twins and clones in included) have to same brain chemistry. Neurological connections and pathways within the brain store data like memories, et cetera. Why couldn't consciousness be limited to the physical realm? After all, it is the only known realm. The supernatural realm is unsupported speculation. ;)
-
No two people (identical twins and clones in included) have to same brain chemistry. Neurological connections and pathways within the brain store data like memories, et cetera. Why couldn't consciousness be limited to the physical realm? After all, it is the only known realm. The supernatural realm is unsupported speculation. ;)
It IS probably limited to the physical realm. The brain is physical, but its complexity is the main issue. We do not know exactly how the brain stores all its stuff. Every brain has its unique network of neuron-paths, wich is, of course unique in everyone of us. Even in twins. They don't share the same consciousness you know.
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
Is my english readable and understandable? I need to know since my native language is norwegian.
-
No two people (identical twins and clones in included) have to same brain chemistry. Neurological connections and pathways within the brain store data like memories, et cetera. Why couldn't consciousness be limited to the physical realm? After all, it is the only known realm. The supernatural realm is unsupported speculation. ;)
It IS probably limited to the physical realm. The brain is physical, but its complexity is the main issue. We do not know exactly how the brain stores all its stuff. Every brain has its unique network of neuron-paths, wich is, of course unique in everyone of us. Even in twins. They don't share the same consciousness you know.
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
Is my english readable and understandable? I need to know since my native language is norwegian.
That is a trick question, our whole brain stores our consciousness, and our brain then tricks us into thinking there is some main control that makes decisions. Ever heard of regret? Different parts of the brain looking at the same decision I'd say.
-
Is my english readable and understandable? I need to know since my native language is norwegian.
Yes, I can read and understand everything you've posted so far just fine. :)
-
Is my english readable and understandable? I need to know since my native language is norwegian.
Yes, I can read and understand everything you've posted so far just fine. :)
You're supposed to lie to him. Tell him we can't understand him. >:(
-
That is a trick question, our whole brain stores our consciousness, and our brain then tricks us into thinking there is some main control that makes decisions. Ever heard of regret? Different parts of the brain looking at the same decision I'd say.
So what if you die and you're brain is transplanted to a cancer patient. Would they still have their own consciousness or would it be yours?
Also, I will not be part of your evil, Raist. >:(
-
That is a trick question, our whole brain stores our consciousness, and our brain then tricks us into thinking there is some main control that makes decisions. Ever heard of regret? Different parts of the brain looking at the same decision I'd say.
So what if you die and you're brain is transplanted to a cancer patient. Would they still have their own consciousness or would it be yours?
Also, I will not be part of your evil, Raist. >:(
Well then it would be the same as you getting a new body. w00t. Basically cancer boy loses rights to his body, though you may have slightly different urges and behaviors due to different body chemistry, testosterone/estrogen levels. Lots of variables, but basically it is you.
Also, you will be part of my evil. :D
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
The original and copie's interactions post creation would deem the two entities as fractionally different beings, chaos wouldn't allow their egos to be identical, to the soul believing viewer there would be a new soul produced by this "blasphemy".
-
Your consciousness is in your brain. Even though you copied your memories, thoughts, and what not, it's not really you who is copied to the machine or another body.
To keep your consciousness (soul) alive after the "copy" or "move", you'll have to have the exact same brain. The variables are so big that this is highly unlikely. Think about this: Every human beeing is unique because you can't see out of anyone elses eyes. This is your own and only consciousness, and you don't share it with anyone else. This would also apply to twins i think.
The brain is unique in its composition, and this is essentially all that is you, in my humble opinion.
Merry christmas everybody! ;D
It is unique... but is the meat part of your mind required for you to be you? If every thought, emotion ETC, all those bits of your life that make you you were copied to a clone that has been kept without any higher function brain activity, Why wouldn't that be you?
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
I think there can only be one consciousness for each induvidual. There are something that seperates us from each other, but we have yet to find what excatly what that is. We can call it "soul" if you like, but I prefer consciousness.
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
I think there can only be one consciousness for each induvidual. There are something that seperates us from each other, but we have yet to find what excatly what that is. We can call it "soul" if you like, but I prefer consciousness.
At some point, the "you" would be sent to the new brain, who maybe it would stay. Hm. Assuming that your whtever is accustomed to your body, I would expect it to stay and the copy you have to exactly like you, for some time. As it had different experiences, it would begin to show differences from you until such time as people that know both of you can easily tell the differences in the way you react.
The question here, is at what point does that copy have a soul/Consciousness of it's own?
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
I think there can only be one consciousness for each induvidual. There are something that seperates us from each other, but we have yet to find what excatly what that is. We can call it "soul" if you like, but I prefer consciousness.
At some point, the "you" would be sent to the new brain, who maybe it would stay. Hm. Assuming that your whtever is accustomed to your body, I would expect it to stay and the copy you have to exactly like you, for some time. As it had different experiences, it would begin to show differences from you until such time as people that know both of you can easily tell the differences in the way you react.
The question here, is at what point does that copy have a soul/Consciousness of it's own?
The moment its consciousness! ::)
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
I think there can only be one consciousness for each induvidual. There are something that seperates us from each other, but we have yet to find what excatly what that is. We can call it "soul" if you like, but I prefer consciousness.
At some point, the "you" would be sent to the new brain, who maybe it would stay. Hm. Assuming that your whtever is accustomed to your body, I would expect it to stay and the copy you have to exactly like you, for some time. As it had different experiences, it would begin to show differences from you until such time as people that know both of you can easily tell the differences in the way you react.
The question here, is at what point does that copy have a soul/Consciousness of it's own?
The moment its consciousness! ::)
And that is when? As it wakes from whatever drugs the doctors gave while they did their Frankenstein work, it is you. Until someone tells it that it's only a copy of another person, it will think it is you. When does it have a consciousness of being a unique person?
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
I think there can only be one consciousness for each induvidual. There are something that seperates us from each other, but we have yet to find what excatly what that is. We can call it "soul" if you like, but I prefer consciousness.
At some point, the "you" would be sent to the new brain, who maybe it would stay. Hm. Assuming that your whtever is accustomed to your body, I would expect it to stay and the copy you have to exactly like you, for some time. As it had different experiences, it would begin to show differences from you until such time as people that know both of you can easily tell the differences in the way you react.
The question here, is at what point does that copy have a soul/Consciousness of it's own?
The moment its consciousness! ::)
And that is when? As it wakes from whatever drugs the doctors gave while they did their Frankenstein work, it is you. Until someone tells it that it's only a copy of another person, it will think it is you. When does it have a consciousness of being a unique person?
In my opinion it would be the moment of it's creation (or potential consciousness). At that point its destiny is entirely separate from the original.
-
The question is: "What part of the brain stores our consciousness?"
It is likely to only emerge only as a system and not as a component. However, both answers imply that copying the exact brain chemistry of a person would duplicate the consciousness perfectly.
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
I think there can only be one consciousness for each induvidual. There are something that seperates us from each other, but we have yet to find what excatly what that is. We can call it "soul" if you like, but I prefer consciousness.
At some point, the "you" would be sent to the new brain, who maybe it would stay. Hm. Assuming that your whtever is accustomed to your body, I would expect it to stay and the copy you have to exactly like you, for some time. As it had different experiences, it would begin to show differences from you until such time as people that know both of you can easily tell the differences in the way you react.
The question here, is at what point does that copy have a soul/Consciousness of it's own?
The moment its consciousness! ::)
And that is when? As it wakes from whatever drugs the doctors gave while they did their Frankenstein work, it is you. Until someone tells it that it's only a copy of another person, it will think it is you. When does it have a consciousness of being a unique person?
The moment all my data is copied to the host brain, it will perhaps think that it is me, but as it becomes aware, it will realize that it is its own consciousness. What a sentence!! ;)
-
The moment all my data is copied to the host brain, it will perhaps think that it is me, but as it becomes aware, it will realize that it is its own consciousness. What a sentence!! ;)
No, when it wakes, it's going to think, "Did it work? Did I, svenanders actually copy my entire brain into another being?"
Then some Doctor's going to examine and say "Do you have a name preference, Mr Clone?"
Then, it will realize that it is the copy, not the original.
-
The moment all my data is copied to the host brain, it will perhaps think that it is me, but as it becomes aware, it will realize that it is its own consciousness. What a sentence!! ;)
No, when it wakes, it's going to think, "Did it work? Did I, svenanders actually copy my entire brain into another being?"
Then some Doctor's going to examine and say "Do you have a name preference, Mr Clone?"
Then, it will realize that it is the copy, not the original.
No. I, the one who is copied, starring at my clone, will realize that it didn't work, because I only see through my eyes. Not the eyes of the clone. The clone may think like me, act like me, do the things I would normally do in a given situation, but it's really not me after all!
It a pretty interesting concept though, don't you think?
-
The moment all my data is copied to the host brain, it will perhaps think that it is me, but as it becomes aware, it will realize that it is its own consciousness. What a sentence!! ;)
No, when it wakes, it's going to think, "Did it work? Did I, svenanders actually copy my entire brain into another being?"
Then some Doctor's going to examine and say "Do you have a name preference, Mr Clone?"
Then, it will realize that it is the copy, not the original.
No. I, the one who is copied, starring at my clone, will realize that it didn't work, because I only see through my eyes. Not the eyes of the clone. The clone may think like me, act like me, do the things I would normally do in a given situation, but it's really not me after all!
It a pretty interesting concept though, don't you think?
It would be... if you were the original. It might suck for the clone. I think some serious mental adjustments might be needed. Nothing personal, but most people today aren't wrapped tight enough to deal with their every memory being someone else's. I have to assume that your clone wouldn't like it any better.
-
The problem originates from subjective terms like consciousness. It is a continuum in which arbitrary lines can be drawn.
Some rhetorical questions:
Are people conscious?
Are animals conscious?
Are microorganisms?
Are molecules?
Are atoms?
Quarks?
All interact according to stimulus/response rules.
The complexity of the brain seems to have a direct correlation with capability of consciousness.
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
No there is no electrical connections between the brains. A physical gap means no control.
The original and copie's interactions post creation would deem the two entities as fractionally different beings, chaos wouldn't allow their egos to be identical, to the soul believing viewer there would be a new soul produced by this "blasphemy".
I'm not trying to imply that's its possible to achieve, I'm just trying to narrow down the philosophical consequences of the hypothetical scenario in which it does occur. :P
-
Ok, but if I was to copy my brains data exactly as it is, and impliment it to another brain. Would that mean that I control two minds?
No there is no electrical connections between the brains. A physical gap means no control.
Exactly! As I said earlier:
I think there can only be one consciousness for each induvidual. There are something that seperates us from each other, but we have yet to find what excatly what that is. We can call it "soul" if you like, but I prefer consciousness.
-
Exactly!
Ah, then I must have misinterpreted your position.
-
Exactly!
Ah, then I must have misinterpreted your position.
You most certainly did. But that's okay, even the greatest can fail from time to time! :P
-
I'm loving how well this debate is going. I think we've brought up some really interesting point of views.
So, have we concluded that two copies of the same conciousness cannot exist as one conciousness but as two seperate ones? How strange if you could see from two different perspectives.
-
I'm loving how well this debate is going. I think we've brought up some really interesting point of views.
So, have we concluded that two copies of the same conciousness cannot exist as one conciousness but as two seperate ones? How strange if you could see from two different perspectives.
I recall watching some show on TV a long time ago, when they were still studying experimental surgeries to deal with extreme cases of epilepsy, specifically surgically separating the two hemispheres of the brain by cutting the bridge - the results were really freaky imo.
They found they could communicate information to the individual using only senses on one side of the person's head, and then request the information via the other, and the person would simply not know it. For instance, they told a fellow in one ear, to leave the room, and after he got up, they stopped him, and asked in the other why he was leaving. He said he was thirsty, and wanted to get a soda - but that side of him had no idea he was asked to get up and leave.
It led me to believe that both the individual consciousness of a person can be split, and also that (on a different topic) a good chunk of our thoughts seem to be dedicated to rationalizing what we do, instead of making decisions. It's an interesting thought - maybe you get up for a rational reason, or get up for an artistic reason, and maybe you have both thoughts at once in different areas of the mind, because one or both is a rationalization, due to temporary dissonance between the hemispheres.
How common is it to get angry at someone for BS reasons, because we are already having a bad day? We may say something mean, and at first tell ourselves its because "they were being a dick" and a few moments later, realize we were being harsh because it's just been a rough day. Is that late realization due to "the computation of thought coming to that conclusion" or is it the delay in propagation of information from another area of the mind that already realized it? Did another part of our mind "know" already and make the decision to be harsh to that person, just because other people had been pissing us off all day?
As for "seeing from two perspectives" I can't see that happening without a data bridge between the two individuals and their respective sensory systems (including the sense of "internal dialog" that allows us to be aware of our thoughts). If that bridge can be separated in a single human mind and cause dissonance, the complete lack of a bridge would create the same effect.
But then, is the person with a split mind really "two consciousnesses" or one, with two aspects that are not aware of each other? Is there any difference - between that "individual's" experience and two clones' experiences, and even the experience of all humans at once - is there any difference between the consciousness of two people separated by a physical body separation and one person with two hemispheres separated by surgery? Of course, "I still see stuff from here" and everyone else "sees stuff from there" but it's an interesting concept, including if you ever did get your hemispheres separated, would you suddenly see out of your left eye for the rest of your life, or your right eye?