|
On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction  What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question.
You go to sleep.
When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in.
Which body are you controlling right now?
|
On April 15 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:12 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:04 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:46 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote:
I don't think some people understand what this means.
Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place? If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me. To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead. No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up. On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote:
I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me. But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one. I would do it for sure. And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies. That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time. If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing. It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes. So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles. No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation. Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport  Well I'm still concious on some level because I'm dreaming while I'm asleep. Also the atoms in my body are the same when I wake up as they were when I went to sleep (more or less). I still can't understand how people think that if an exact copy of them were to appear in front of them that they would suddenly be incontrol of the other body. Ok fine, instead of being asleep, how about when you get general anesthetic for a surgery? You definitely aren't even partially conscious then. You also don't actually know the atoms are the same particular atoms. As has been said before, any to atoms of the same isotope are indistinguishable. When you go to sleep, you have no way to know for sure whether or not you are still composed of the same atoms, since there is no way to tell two atoms of the same isotope apart. It isn't an exact copy appearing in front of me. The information contained in my "consciousness" is loaded into an identical body, after the destruction of the original. There is only ever one "me" at any given time. Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:23 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:04 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:46 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote:
I don't think some people understand what this means.
Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place? If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me. To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead. No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up. On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote:
I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me. But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one. I would do it for sure. And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies. That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time. If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing. It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes. So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles. No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation. Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore. OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead. No, I don't believe in an immaterial soul, and thats actually a big reason why I'm ok with it. If consciousness is linked to the body, it can be measured and recreated. Assuming it can be recreated with 100% accuracy, its the same consciousness at either end of the teleporter. Just like how two atoms of the same element are indistinguishable, so too are these consciousnesses. So if you only have one of the copies, (original or otherwise), you must assume it is the same consciousness. If sci-fi teleporters could make copies, why don't they raise armies like that? Why does the Federation have more than one red-shirt? Why not just have thousands of copies of that one red-shirt? Since they don't do this, the only explanation is that they can't, because its too good of an idea to pass up for no reason.
If you do not believe in immaterial soul then creating a copy of the person in this way is as exact mollecular copy of the spoon. But the teleporter does not really have to allow multiple copies, even possibility of their existance is enough to make my argument. If there can exist multiple exact on mollecular level copies of yourself and since you do not believe in soul there definitely can be multiple of them all indistinguishable, which one of them is you ? Your approach has no way of answering it. I can easily answer that. The copy that shares with me the physical continuity. And strangely enough this is exactly what people associate with the concept of "me". Noone when asked will answer that he is all the copies, because self-identity is exactly that, self, it is not defined by the exact similarity to something. It is defined by physical continuity of the self. Without soul, that continuity is broken when the original is destroyed. The only way for you to be at the end of that teleport is if your immaterial soul separated from your body and floated there. Without it there is nothing that survives. And if nothing survives, you are dead.
They do not do that, because authors did not thought it through But if you watch the episodes with failed transports it is easily seen that there is nothing but procedural roadblocks not physical ones.
|
On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote:
Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
Well what if you weren't awoken at all. Basically, you're saying you have no objection to being killed right now (if it was painless let's say) because you have no identity anyway? What is the difference between "you" and anyone else then? How is this "clone" anymore "you" than a twin brother or sister?
|
On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
|
On April 15 2012 04:51 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 04:12 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:04 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:46 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote:
I don't think some people understand what this means.
Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place? If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me. To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead. No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up. On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote:
I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me. But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one. I would do it for sure. And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies. That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time. If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing. It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes. So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles. No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation. Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport Well I'm still concious on some level because I'm dreaming while I'm asleep. Also the atoms in my body are the same when I wake up as they were when I went to sleep (more or less). I still can't understand how people think that if an exact copy of them were to appear in front of them that they would suddenly be incontrol of the other body. Ok fine, instead of being asleep, how about when you get general anesthetic for a surgery? You definitely aren't even partially conscious then. You also don't actually know the atoms are the same particular atoms. As has been said before, any to atoms of the same isotope are indistinguishable. When you go to sleep, you have no way to know for sure whether or not you are still composed of the same atoms, since there is no way to tell two atoms of the same isotope apart. It isn't an exact copy appearing in front of me. The information contained in my "consciousness" is loaded into an identical body, after the destruction of the original. There is only ever one "me" at any given time. On April 15 2012 04:23 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:04 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:46 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 03:43 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote:
I don't think some people understand what this means.
Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place? If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me. To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead. No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up. On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote:
I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me. But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one. I would do it for sure. And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies. That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time. If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing. It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes. So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles. No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation. Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore. OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead. No, I don't believe in an immaterial soul, and thats actually a big reason why I'm ok with it. If consciousness is linked to the body, it can be measured and recreated. Assuming it can be recreated with 100% accuracy, its the same consciousness at either end of the teleporter. Just like how two atoms of the same element are indistinguishable, so too are these consciousnesses. So if you only have one of the copies, (original or otherwise), you must assume it is the same consciousness. If sci-fi teleporters could make copies, why don't they raise armies like that? Why does the Federation have more than one red-shirt? Why not just have thousands of copies of that one red-shirt? Since they don't do this, the only explanation is that they can't, because its too good of an idea to pass up for no reason. If you do not believe in immaterial soul then creating a copy of the person in this way is as exact mollecular copy of the spoon. But the teleporter does not really have to allow multiple copies, even possibility of their existance is enough to make my argument. If there can exist multiple exact on mollecular level copies of yourself and since you do not believe in soul there definitely can be multiple of them all indistinguishable, which one of them is you ? Your approach has no way of answering it. I can easily answer that. The copy that shares with me the physical continuity. And strangely enough this is exactly what people associate with the concept of "me". Noone when asked will answer that he is all the copies, because self-identity is exactly that, self, it is not defined by the exact similarity to something. It is defined by physical continuity of the self. Without soul, that continuity is broken when the original is destroyed. The only way for you to be at the end of that teleport is if your immaterial soul separated from your body and floated there. Without it there is nothing that survives. And if nothing survives, you are dead. They do not do that, because authors did not thought it through But if you watch the episodes with failed transports it is easily seen that there is nothing but procedural roadblocks not physical ones.
The thing is, with your method, it depends on which copy is answering the question. They will all say that they are the one with physical continuity. Which do you believe?
Look, at the far end of the teleporter, that version of you is not aware of any death, and neither is anyone else. The only person aware of any death is the original version of you, and since everything that made him up has been recreated at the far end of the teleporter, it is inconsequential.
I find it hard to believe any procedural or bureaucratic problems could prevent them from taking advantage of free and limitless soldiers.
Edit: sorry for the blank post before, I missed the text-box and hit post.
|
On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now? Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
|
On April 15 2012 04:54 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote:
Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood... Well what if you weren't awoken at all. Basically, you're saying you have no objection to being killed right now (if it was painless let's say) because you have no identity anyway? What is the difference between "you" and anyone else then? How is this "clone" anymore "you" than a twin brother or sister?
Consciousness exists only in the present - we are only ever conscious of a certain moment in time. That we connect this moment backwards through memory and habit thereby creating an "identity" is what constitutes us. The difference between me and anyone else is the both the difference of the moment of which we are conscious and our memories - I'm not sure what you were getting at with that one. This clone is me by virtue of sharing my memories, therefore having the same exact identity as me, therefore.being me.
|
On April 15 2012 04:58 Maitolasi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now? Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room. Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
I would say that there would be two "mes" from every perspective outside of my mine, but one "me" from my own perspective (the other person wouldn't be me, but only I would know that). I would be warranted in referring to the other me as an "other", whereas we would both be indistinguishable to anyone else and they would not be warranted in making any sort of distinction. I get the point you're making with respect to the OP, which I agree with.
|
On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now? Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Hardly, regardless of your opinion on identity there are now 2 persons in a room where there was one and neither can experience the other's consciouness.
|
On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
So in a scenario where the original does not die both would be equally you ? Really, you would be able to experience both their lives from now on. I don't think so, you would be experiencing only one. So easy to decide wich one is the actual you.
And yes, the continuity of location is important, at any point in time you must be you. In teleporter scenario there are multiple times where there is no you. Sleep does not come even close, you are still you when you sleep, just unconscious. Yes you cannot know if you are not killed and recreated in your sleep. But if you are then your original self is dead and only another copy of you argues with me.
|
From my own perspective, the clone of me would not be me. Life from my own point of view would end the moment I died, and then my clone would live on in my place. As far as everyone else would be concerned, yes that is 'me' but the real me died and no longer is conscious. It's like reincarnation. Whether or not reincarnation is true, you have no memories of past life, and any past life you may have had isn't really 'you'.
In the case that it just created a copy of you and didn't destroy the original you, the two you's would instantly become two different people because they will immediately start experiencing different things. You wouldn't have dual consciousness, nor would you be able to control both bodies. It'd be like your twin brother being born when you are 21 instead of at conception.
|
On April 15 2012 04:58 Maitolasi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now? Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room. Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness".
EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
|
No, I would never use it. If all we are is a biological machine then our consciousness as we know it would not be transported to the other body. It would be an entirely new self, made up of completely different particles. I (my mind) would cease to exist and an exact replica would replace me.
|
like shephard in mass effect 2?
|
This is like the movie The Fly!
|
I think we'll have to know the answer from neurobiologists first whether a certain arrangement of neurons means memory or a certain arrangement means X, Y, or etc. Right now to be honest it doesn't seem necessary as I can go about the world just fine with public transit or planes. :S
|
On April 15 2012 05:06 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:58 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now? Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room. Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU. Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
So are two identical twins the same person then? They were, in fact, one zygote at one point in time, except it happened to split in half.
If you were to clone yourself, and move from that point onward, the two of you would experience different things and become different people. you may have the past and same name, but you are not defined solely on your past but the present as well. You're right there is no way to tell which was the original (unless there was some sort of tag on the clone), but then again there is no way to tell which of the two identical twins was conceived first.
|
On April 15 2012 05:11 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 05:06 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:58 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote:
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self. No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now? Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room. Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU. Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go So are two identical twins the same person then? They were, in fact, one zygote at one point in time, except it happened to split in half. If you were to clone yourself, and move from that point onward, the two of you would experience different things and become different people. you may have the past and same name, but you are not defined solely on your past but the present as well. You're right there is no way to tell which was the original (unless there was some sort of tag on the clone), but then again there is no way to tell which of the two identical twins was conceived first.
Actually there would be a way to tell which one is the original.
The clone wouldn't have the memory about how he got to the exact place where he "spawned" while the original one would have.
|
On April 15 2012 05:16 Maitolasi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 05:11 Najda wrote:On April 15 2012 05:06 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:58 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote:[quote] No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way. What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul". Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now? Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room. Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU. Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go So are two identical twins the same person then? They were, in fact, one zygote at one point in time, except it happened to split in half. If you were to clone yourself, and move from that point onward, the two of you would experience different things and become different people. you may have the past and same name, but you are not defined solely on your past but the present as well. You're right there is no way to tell which was the original (unless there was some sort of tag on the clone), but then again there is no way to tell which of the two identical twins was conceived first. Actually there would be a way to tell which one is the original. The clone wouldn't have the memory about how he got to the exact place where he "spawned" while the original one would have.
The Clone obviously can't spawn on top of the original so it would have to spawn next to it.
+ Show Spoiler +well I fucked up that edit
|
Of course I would use it.
Reminds me more than anything of 'Altered Carbon' where they call bodies for 'sleeves'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
