Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ehndras]

If you believe only in physical consciousness, then by assumption based on current scientific thought, you must believe that the new copy of yourself will manifest consciousness as perfectly as yours, exactly, as in a flawless mirror image. See how many synonyms of 'same' I put in there?

If you believe in the soul, then most likely the soul would be transported along with its vessel, as it must capture matter AND energy, and your soul would be transported to the new host as well.

You're putting in two extremes.

Can people not believe of something in-between?

In other news, it makes me cringe to watch people debate a subject none of them know absolute jack shit about. Lets debate genetic manipulation or electrical engineering, but PLEASE don't argue over a topic where you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about, nor does anyone else really.

Calm your jets. Really. Sit down and calm down. It's better on yourself to stay calm.

Now, if it makes you cringe, why did you even read the thread?

It's like if I had a CD, copied it over to form a second CD with the exact content, then smashed the first. Yes, I am breaking a CD, but nothing of value is lost, even if that CD had some very valuable data on it.

It's not about the data on the disk, it's about which one is the original that had that data.

Similarly, it's not about what gets copied or not on a teleporter, it's about the original person who stepped on the teleporter.

I read it because it is an interesting topic I've liked since I was about 6. I do agree that I was out of line and subsequently apologize for my outburst, though it was aimed specifically at some of the early posters who quite clearly had no clue what they were talking about.

I'm no expert in Quantum Physics, but I've discussed this very same topic with a few individuals who know much more about it than I do, and I am simply sharing the opinion I've developed based on independent research and the words of people actually education in Physics. My opinion is just that, my opinion. When it comes down to it, even Physicists are simply 'pulling words out of their asses' when discussing something they're yet to properly replicate in any significant scale.

[Tarran]

So the question is - Why does it matter if its a new instance of us or not, if its got everything we do? If we're destroyed, what of value is actually lost, and why is it valuable?

It depends on how you value and think of yourself, I guess.

Personally, I value the 'thing' that is thinking/looking/controlling right now. Selfishness, I guess you could call it. It's not valuable to anyone else, but to me it's pretty much priceless. It is my belief that teleportation won't carry it through. That's just my uneducated opinion, of course, but opinions are pretty much everything to the person with opinions.

[DeKaFu]

You seem to believe, for example, that so long as we remained alive we could suffer severe brain trauma and total amnesia and still be "us", while I don't think that's true at all.

I was actually thinking about this during the discussion. I actually consider that at its extreme, that could also be a form of "death", but one that's entirely different than what I'm talking about. That's the loss of identity, not the loss of perception. To lose your identity means you're still alive, but the person you were is no more. To lose your perception means the person you were might still be alive, but you've been annihilated so aren't around to acknowledge it. I'm much more terrified of the latter than the former, though they're both scary.

Edit:

It depends on how you value and think of yourself, I guess.

Personally, I value the 'thing' that is thinking/looking/controlling right now. Selfishness, I guess you could call it. It's not valuable to anyone else, but to me it's pretty much priceless. It is my belief that teleportation won't carry it through. That's just my uneducated opinion, of course, but opinions are pretty much everything to the person with opinions.

This, pretty much. The selfish mindset that my personal perception of existing is the most important thing in the world, because without it there will BE no world (for me).

I think it's non-transferable in this context because we're not transfering anything: we're destroying and recreating. I believe that consciousness is irrevocably tied to the physical existance of the brain, so when the brain is destroyed so is the consciousness, and both are generated anew as a separate but identical entity. The old brain/consciousness is replaced by a new, identical one, which is identical but physically distinct.

I guess I don't see why it's hard to understand. If a 100% accurate copy of me and me were placed in a room with weapons and only one body was allowed to walk out alive, I'd sure as heck want to make sure it was the me that was typing this now. That alone means we'd be distinct people, in my book.

[Max White]

Personally, I value the 'thing' that is thinking/looking/controlling right now.

That is called your brain. It is a large, complex mess of physical neurons and all sorts of chemicals that I don't understand, but I assure you, if we are aiming for 100% accuracy in cloning, it is as easy to copy over as a piece of wood. The thing you value would not be lost.

[Tarran]

That is called your brain. It is a large, complex mess of physical neurons and all sorts of chemicals that I don't understand, but I assure you, if we are aiming for 100% accuracy in cloning, it is as easy to copy over as a piece of wood. The thing you value would not be lost.

The thing I was talking about was not the brain. Not the soul either. Something heavily related to the brain but not a part of it and it also has the properties of the soul making it impossible to replace, so to say. Another way to describe it, as I mentioned way back, is a "line" of "consciousness".

I'm still certain that it would be lost.

[Max White]

This thing, that you are describing, it isn't real.
This might be hard to accept, and I understand that a lot of people invest their self worth into a supernatural entity of them self, and define their physical entity as nothing more than a vessel for this 'soul', or 'spirit' or what ever you want to call it and what ever you want to attribute to it, but just because something is comforting doesn't make it true.

No matter how much you wish otherwise, and and I are chemical reactions.

[Ehndras]

That is called your brain. It is a large, complex mess of physical neurons and all sorts of chemicals that I don't understand, but I assure you, if we are aiming for 100% accuracy in cloning, it is as easy to copy over as a piece of wood. The thing you value would not be lost.

The thing I was talking about was not the brain. Not the soul either. Something heavily related to the brain but not a part of it and it also has the properties of the soul making it impossible to replace, so to say. Another way to describe it, as I mentioned way back, is a "line" of "consciousness".

I'm still certain that it would be lost.

You're still talking about the soul, albeit in a desensitized manner. The idea is the same regardless of the terminology. Either the consciousness is created by your body or its separate from your body. Its either in or out. The soul is a non-physical aspect of your identity, regardless of what particular details your specific belief system or spiritual beliefs dictate. An energy-state reflection, a shadow avatar, a spiritual medium, what have you.

[Ehndras]

Thanks Max, I didn't want to be the asshole to state what all of us have been pointing to for the last 20 minutes of vagueness.

With that out of the way, back to Quantum Mechanics?

[DeKaFu]

It is wholly physical. What's so hard to understand about two brains not being the same as one brain?

[Max White]

Nothing. What is so hard to understand about two brains being the same?

[Ehndras]

It is wholly physical. What's so hard to understand about two brains not being the same as one brain?

Okay, should we choose to accept that school of thought, explain to me what makes them different? No generalizations, I'd like to hear some viable evidence that would acceptably provide a logical reason why the two conscious minds would differ, besides the arguments we've already presented.

The two consciousnesses being integrally different, and the consciousnesses splitting and becoming different are two very different arguments, mind you.

I don't agree at all, but I'd like to see the mechanics behind this particular school of thought. =) No point debating and discussing if you're not willing to attempt to understand and dissect the opinions and diverse theories people discuss.

[Tarran]

This thing, that you are describing, it isn't real.

Do you have definitive proof?

This might be hard to accept, and I understand that a lot of people invest their self worth into a supernatural entity of them self, and define their physical entity as nothing more than a vessel for this 'soul', or 'spirit' or what ever you want to call it and what ever you want to attribute to it, but just because something is comforting doesn't make it true.

I never stated that I believed in souls. And for the most part I don't believe in souls.

You're still talking about the soul, albeit in a desensitized manner. The idea is the same regardless of the terminology. Either the consciousness is created by your body or its separate from your body. Its either in or out. The soul is a non-physical aspect of your identity, regardless of what particular details your specific belief system or spiritual beliefs dictate. An energy-state reflection, a shadow avatar, a spiritual medium, what have you.

No, what I'm talking about is... a "state" of the mind. Not the soul, but not directly part of the brain. Physical, but... Hard to explain.

[Max White]

Do you have definitive proof?

Did you just ask me to prove a negative?
Is that something you honestly just asked of me?
Did you really just attempt to shift burden of proof from the affirmative to the negative?

I'm... Not sure we can continue this conversation. We have reached your line of rational thought.

[Ehndras]

Yeah... I'm going too.

[Tarran]

Did you just ask me to prove a negative?
Is that something you honestly just asked of me?

Yes. You attacked my opinion without proof, thus I expected you to provide some. If you want to change my mind, you gotta provide proof.

If you cannot prove a point, don't try to change my opinion with it.

Plus, you stated it in a way that sounded like you had proof.

I'm... Not sure we can continue this conversation. We have reached your line of rational thought.

Not that I cared much for the argument anyway. I was just stating my opinions.