|
On April 17 2012 11:44 lorkac wrote:
I would like to clarify something that no one is really saying.
The only person who cares about this question is the self.
Everyone else will be (presumably) treating you exactly the same since it is an exact copy of you--there's no need for them to treat you better.
Your wife will still fuck him.
Your boss will still pay him.
Even your son will play catch with him.
The question matters mostly to you. Are you okay with someone taking over the rest of your life.
If you read the thread you'd know that plenty of people have already pointed out that you're the only one this matters to.
|
If such device can exist, there is absolutely no need to "kill" the old body.
In some sci-fic. , the molecule assembling data and your memeory data are stored in a storage device seperately altogether (like a hardisk, at somewhere safe, like outside of solar system where there is no asteriod. With backup copies all over the galaxy.)
That way, even if your "cloning" failed and your old body die due to some unfortunate accident, other people can always "clone" you back again so you can never actually "die". The extra copies can just upload and download a patch from time to time so that every copy of you can share the same memory and be "up to date".
I do not see how this is not possible if you can already copy yourself from the atomic level.
|
It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche
To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness.
|
On April 18 2012 11:01 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness.
If someone took everything that is me and made another me without my notion, I would continue to live my life normally while me #2 would start existing from the same point. How is that not continuity?
Imagine if the machine instead made a copy of you using your exact molecular structure and injected memory then sent that copy on its way while torturing the previous body, still conscious, for 50 years. Not many people would volunteer for the procedure if they knew, and yet for 50 years, no one would know because the copy would claim that the teleportation worked perfectly. It wouldn't know any better. Replace "tortured for 50 years" with "kill", and then no one would ever know... but it would still happen. I don't claim to know what happens after death (probably nothing), but you'd definitely experience it. Your newly made clone wouldn't. Not yet anyway.
It's true, I might as well claim that we don't know if we died every night and wake up a new person in the morning. We don't know that. But I'm pretty sure I don't get demolecularized in my bed so I'll take my chances.
|
On April 18 2012 12:37 Back wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 11:01 sickoota wrote:It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness. If someone took everything that is me and made another me without my notion, I would continue to live my life normally while me #2 would start existing from the same point. How is that not continuity? Imagine if the machine instead made a copy of you using your exact molecular structure and injected memory then sent that copy on its way while torturing the previous body, still conscious, for 50 years. Not many people would volunteer for the procedure if they knew, and yet for 50 years, no one would know because the copy would claim that the teleportation worked perfectly. It wouldn't know any better. Replace "tortured for 50 years" with "kill", and then no one would ever know... but it would still happen. I don't claim to know what happens after death (probably nothing), but you'd definitely experience it. Your newly made clone wouldn't. Not yet anyway. It's true, I might as well claim that we don't know if we died every night and wake up a new person in the morning. We don't know that. But I'm pretty sure I don't get demolecularized in my bed so I'll take my chances.
We actually do still sense the world when we're asleep. It's how we learn to not pee the bed, to wake up to an alarm, etc...
So no--we do know that we wake up after going to bed. And yes, the machine will kill you and you will feel it kill you and you will experience it killing you. The only people who don't care is the clone and the people who interact with the clone who don't care that you're dead.
|
Dont see why this has to be such a phylosophical discussion or what believing in a soul has to do with it.
I just went by what the op wrote.
Its a 100% copy, so if you believe in a soul your soul would be copied as well.
You would also per definition not notice a difference (else its not a 100% copy) so thats why i concluded that everyone should use the machine.
If the op wanted to start a discussion about what makes up our "self" then i think he should have worded it differently.
The experiment is an interesting way to start thinking about it but "100% copy" kinda spoils it for me, leading to only 1 answer possible.
|
On April 18 2012 13:04 Rassy wrote:
Dont see why this has to be such a phylosophical discussion or what believing in a soul has to do with it.
I just went by what the op wrote.
Its a 100% copy, so if you believe in a soul your soul would be copied as well.
You would also per definition not notice a difference (else its not a 100% copy) so thats why i concluded that everyone should use the machine.
If the op wanted to start a discussion about what makes up our "self" then i think he should have worded it differently.
The experiment is an interesting way to start thinking about it but "100% copy" kinda spoils it for me, leading to only 1 answer possible.
The fallacy your making is that your perception of the world is transferred over to the copy and isn't simply copied over. If it's transferred over--then your experience simply shifted from the old body to the new body. The discussion is the argument that the copy is just a copy--it's not you. Not that it isn't as good or even better than you--but it isn't you, it's a separate being that is exactly like you, but is not you. You will die, and will have to deal with the fact that you are dead.
|
Can someone please tell me if there is a reason for destroying your original self other than playing pretend that its teleportation?
|
On April 18 2012 14:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Can someone please tell me if there is a reason for destroying your original self other than playing pretend that its teleportation?
It's about your worth as a human.
If a clone replaced you--would it matter that you were replaced?
|
On April 18 2012 14:27 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 14:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Can someone please tell me if there is a reason for destroying your original self other than playing pretend that its teleportation? It's about your worth as a human. If a clone replaced you--would it matter that you were replaced?
Committing suicide doesn't seem like something someone who considers themselves of worth would do.
|
I dont know exactly how consciousness works, I dont know if the machine rebuilding me from scratch will mean the new me gets my consciousness along with a copy of my mind and body, or if it'll simply be a copy with the same memories and a new consciousness, and I'll be dead.
I'd probably still use it because im lazy
|
Lets say the machine has a malfunction. It fails to destroy you but the copy on the other end is still created. There's a pistol next to you with a single bullet in the chamber. Do you blow your brains out to complete the 'teleportation'?
|
On April 18 2012 14:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 14:27 lorkac wrote:On April 18 2012 14:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Can someone please tell me if there is a reason for destroying your original self other than playing pretend that its teleportation? It's about your worth as a human. If a clone replaced you--would it matter that you were replaced? Committing suicide doesn't seem like something someone who considers themselves of worth would do.
But is it suicide if the clone gets to live out the rest of your life so that, to everyone else around you, nothing has changed? You're not exactly ridding the world of your existence, your simply ridding yourself of the world's existence.
EDIT
The actual reason the machine kills you is that it's a random reason. You could say that it needs a human body to fuel the process, or that the process can't start without a human host, or you could say that instead of a machine it's a wizard that needs eye of newt and a human sacrifice to make the clone. It's arbitrary.
|
On April 18 2012 11:01 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness.
Yes, I subjectively cannot be sure about continuity, outside observers can. Unless you are arguing some strange version of solipsism or denying existence of objective reality. Sleeping is not stopping me as a process, consciousness is just part of "me", it is not everything.
There are terms in the language that exist only in the language and not elsewhere. "I" is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
