Print

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

Yes

10 (17.9%)

No

46 (82.1%)

Total Members Voted: 53

[anzki4]

You don't answer any of my questions, yet I've answered yours. I am not a clone, I don't want to die, I won't let somebody kill me, I don't gain anything from another me leaving the shop after I've died, no matter how perfectly 'me' he is.

ah but you see my friend, you are not dead, you live on because your clone has all your memories, thinks they are you, and is an exact copy of you in anyway. In the eyes of the world, you never died. Isnt that wonderful?

Would you also agree to be tortured for the rest of your life, while your clone continues it (your life that is)? After all, it has your memories and thinks it is you. In the eyes of the world you would have never been tortured. Isn't that wonderful?

[Catsup]

Would you also agree to be tortured for the rest of your life, while your clone continues it (your life that is)? After all, it has your memories and thinks it is you. In the eyes of the world you would have never been tortured. Isn't that wonderful?

exactly my point, but according to some logic in this thread, its all good since a perfect version of you that also has your memories and thinks its you is out in the world fulfilling your dreams.

[Graknorke]

You don't answer any of my questions, yet I've answered yours. I am not a clone, I don't want to die, I won't let somebody kill me, I don't gain anything from another me leaving the shop after I've died, no matter how perfectly 'me' he is.

ah but you see my friend, you are not dead, you live on because your clone has all your memories, thinks they are you, and is an exact copy of you in anyway. In the eyes of the world, you never died. Isnt that wonderful?

Would you also agree to be tortured for the rest of your life, while your clone continues it (your life that is)? After all, it has your memories and thinks it is you. In the eyes of the world you would have never been tortured. Isn't that wonderful?

The clone is literally me. At least as much as the one being tortured. Both are me. They are not each other, but both of them are me.

[MagmaMcFry]

Okay, put these two identical beings in each their box, one in a red box and one in a blue box. Are they the same person before they open their eyes and see the color? Are they the same person after?
Do they experience the same thing? When you let them out of their boxes and they see each other, do they seem themselves or someone very much like them? At any point, is this information shared between them, even if neither speaks at any point? If the one from the blue box is then taken to another box where he is put to sleep and the one from the red is taken out to the street and let go, is the one from the red box the same as the now dead one from the blue box? Can we agree that the guy from the blue box is now dead?

Can you accept that I'd rather be the one who woke up in a red box in above scenario?

Note that being in the red box has nothing to do with being a clone. So you would prefer to be the one who stays alive, regardless of whether you are a clone or not? Then would you accept the $10?

You don't answer any of my questions, yet I've answered yours. I am not a clone, I don't want to die, I won't let somebody kill me, I don't gain anything from another me leaving the shop after I've died, no matter how perfectly 'me' he is.

Okay, here's the answers to your questions: Yes, mostly, no, themselves, no, mostly, no, yes.

Why would I want to kill a perfectly good copy of myself if I can avoid that?

im not sure, why did the original get destroyed in the poll?

It was essentially the question "Do you think of yourself as a collection or configuration of particles", wrapped in thick layers of example. "Configurationists" would agree (if only for the $10), "collectionists" would disagree. I'm rather astounded at the number of collectionists here, since it kinda shouldn't matter for you if you are made of this particle or that particle, especially since the particles making up your body are being exchanged the whole time.

Good. Now imagine that all the particles that you are made of are simultaneously and instantaneously replaced by other particles of the same kind. Would that kill you?

i dont think this is possible physically, and even if there was some way to emulate it, the test subject would not be able to know themselves.

i think we should set a line for realism, i know you die when your brain cells cease to function, very simple and realistic.

This is a hypothetical scenario, we aren't talking about realism here. Now please answer the question with a "yes" or a "no" according to what you believe. Either way, I'll show you that your beliefs contradict each other. At the beginning of our conversation, there was a large mental gap between your contradicting beliefs. I am slowly filling up this gap until they collide. Then I'll watch the fireworks.

[anzki4]

The clone is literally me. At least as much as the one being tortured. Both are me. They are not each other, but both of them are me.

You (the person who is reading this) are still experiencing the world from the point of view of the poor sod being tortured and the other you (the clone) gets to enjoy your life. Doesn't much help you both being you, when you are still separate entities, with separate points of view.

[Catsup]

It was essentially the question "Do you think of yourself as a collection or configuration of particles", wrapped in thick layers of example. "Configurationists" would agree (if only for the $10), "collectionists" would disagree. I'm rather astounded at the number of collectionists here, since it kinda shouldn't matter for you if you are made of this particle or that particle, especially since the particles making up your body are being exchanged the whole time.

This is a hypothetical scenario, we aren't talking about realism here. Now please answer the question with a "yes" or a "no" according to what you believe. Either way, I'll show you that your beliefs contradict each other. At the beginning of our conversation, there was a large mental gap between your contradicting beliefs. I am slowly filling up this gap until they collide.

i think we found the root of the disagreement here, this whole time me (and most other ppl) were thinking realistically. You can make anything possible if its hypothetical, and should therefore reword the question as "hypothetically deconstruct you on the atomic level while simultaneously reconstructing you as a perfect clone".

realistically, your arguments fail and the first person really dies. But since instantaneous atomic rearrangement is possible, then there is a chance that a person's individual "ability to become conscious", survives. (i say chance because realistically it would be impossible to prove either side)

note: when i said we need to draw a line between realism and speculation i mean that some topics like cloning, which is practically growing new bodies similar to laboratory grown meat and organs and involve technology that already exist are acceptable. Teleportation, distortion of physical reality on the atomic level, and anything else on par with sci-fi fantasy should be kept out and not used in any logical arguments.

[Graknorke]

Catsup, I think the issue here is with your "ability to become consciousness", which you seem to attribute to something other than matter. As if it is based on something that exists seperate to matter an energy.

[Catsup]

Catsup, I think the issue here is with your "ability to become consciousness", which you seem to attribute to something other than matter. As if it is based on something that exists seperate to matter an energy.

yea, i cannot further elaborate because i do not know exactly how the brain functions (electrical impulses?) but i do know that if a particular brain shuts down for good and loses function, then the original functions cannot be brought back by using a duplicate brain. Only by somehow getting the original brain working again can that person be brought back.

i'll give some synonyms for what i mean:
-being alive
-alive, individual self
- able to be aware of self, able to receive stimulus

[MagmaMcFry]

It was essentially the question "Do you think of yourself as a collection or configuration of particles", wrapped in thick layers of example. "Configurationists" would agree (if only for the $10), "collectionists" would disagree. I'm rather astounded at the number of collectionists here, since it kinda shouldn't matter for you if you are made of this particle or that particle, especially since the particles making up your body are being exchanged the whole time.

This is a hypothetical scenario, we aren't talking about realism here. Now please answer the question with a "yes" or a "no" according to what you believe. Either way, I'll show you that your beliefs contradict each other. At the beginning of our conversation, there was a large mental gap between your contradicting beliefs. I am slowly filling up this gap until they collide.

i think we found the root of the disagreement here, this whole time me (and most other ppl) were thinking realistically. You can make anything possible if its hypothetical, and should therefore reword the question as "hypothetically deconstruct you on the atomic level while simultaneously reconstructing you as a perfect clone".

Nope, the question has to imply that there is a small, albeit nonzero time span where two of you are simultaneously conscious.

realistically, your arguments fail and the first person really dies. But since instantaneous atomic rearrangement is possible, then there is a chance that a person's individual "ability to become conscious", survives. (i say chance because realistically it would be impossible to prove either side)

note: when i said we need to draw a line between realism and speculation i mean that some topics like cloning, which is practically growing new bodies similar to laboratory grown meat and organs and involve technology that already exist are acceptable. Teleportation, distortion of physical reality on the atomic level, and anything else on par with sci-fi fantasy should be kept out and not used in any logical arguments.

Logical questions may include arbitrarily "unrealistic" assumptions. The only thing that a logical argument needs is to be true. The trick is to find the right true statements to argue with.

Catsup, I think the issue here is with your "ability to become consciousness", which you seem to attribute to something other than matter. As if it is based on something that exists seperate to matter an energy.

yea, i cannot further elaborate because i do not know exactly how the brain functions (electrical impulses?) but i do know that if a particular brain shuts down for good and loses function, then the original functions cannot be brought back by using a duplicate brain. Only by somehow getting the original brain working again can that person be brought back.

Obviously the original brain cannot start working again if you only mess with a working duplicate. But why is it important for you to run your consciousness on your original brain? Computer programs can run on every computer designed to handle the program's specs, yet you seem to think that it would somehow be important to always keep the program on the same computer (even if other computers have better specs).

i'll give some synonyms for what i mean:
-being alive
-alive, individual self
- able to be aware of self, able to receive stimulus

This does not enlighten anyone. Please use whole sentences.

[Catsup]

Nope, the question has to imply that there is a small, albeit nonzero time span where two of you are simultaneously conscious.

then we agree that the original person has died, and is no longer alive, no longer having the "ability to become conscious" correct?

then disagreement is whether there is any meaning to have a duplicate clone of you running about pretending to be you. It seems most ppl think its meaningless (including me) but there is a few ppl (including you) that see that duplicate as also being the original "you" and thus, "you" never died.

Logical questions may include arbitrarily "unrealistic" assumptions. The only thing that a logical argument needs is to be true. The trick is to find the right true statements to argue with.

i believe arguing over "true" unrealistic assumptions is pointless, so i've been keeping a relatively realistic point of view this whole time.

Obviously the original brain cannot start working again if you only mess with a working duplicate. But why is it important for you to run your consciousness on your original brain? Computer programs can run on every computer designed to handle the program's specs, yet you seem to think that it would somehow be important to always keep the program on the same computer (even if other computers have better specs).

there was a comparison to computer programs in an earlier post. It doesnt work like that for brains because the consciousness you mentioned is unique to each individual brain. It is like an instance of a program that can be paused, but if terminated, can never be gotten back. A copy may be run that produces similar results, but it is never the original instance.

i'll give some synonyms for what i mean:
-being alive
-alive, individual self
- able to be aware of self, able to receive stimulus

This does not enlighten me. Please use whole sentences.

fixed, sorry i need to have perfect grammer to enlighten you

[MagmaMcFry]

Nope, the question has to imply that there is a small, albeit nonzero time span where two of you are simultaneously conscious.

then we agree that the original person has died, and is no longer alive, no longer having the "ability to become conscious" correct?

The original body has died. The original mind, however, is still very much alive.

then disagreement is whether there is any meaning to have a duplicate clone of you running about pretending to be you. It seems most ppl think its meaningless (including me) but there is a few ppl (including you) that see that duplicate as also being the original "you" and thus, "you" never died.

It took you that long to realize?

Logical questions may include arbitrarily "unrealistic" assumptions. The only thing that a logical argument needs is to be true. The trick is to find the right true statements to argue with.

i believe arguing over "true" unrealistic assumptions is pointless, so i've been keeping a relatively realistic point of view this whole time.

The object of discussion is a very unrealistic hypothetical situation. It's kinda pointless to keep to realism here.

Obviously the original brain cannot start working again if you only mess with a working duplicate. But why is it important for you to run your consciousness on your original brain? Computer programs can run on every computer designed to handle the program's specs, yet you seem to think that it would somehow be important to always keep the program on the same computer (even if other computers have better specs).

there was a comparison to computer programs in an earlier post. It doesnt work like that for brains because the consciousness you mentioned is unique to each individual brain. It is like an instance of a program that can be paused, but if terminated, can never be gotten back. A copy may be run that produces similar results, but it is never the original instance.

Who cares about the instance as long as the program runs?

i'll give some synonyms for what i mean:
-being alive
-alive, individual self
- able to be aware of self, able to receive stimulus

This does not enlighten me. Please use whole sentences.

fixed, sorry i need to have perfect grammer to enlighten you

It truly cannot enlighten anyone. All you have given is three context-free terms that are linguistically close to whatever it is you are meaning (you didn't even specify what you are synonymizing), all of them proxying to at least one ill-defined concept ("alive" or "self"), which makes them even more ill-defined than they are already by lack of context. It's like trying to clarify the meaning of "dog" by saying that it is synonymous to "canine", "cat" and "dog with a tail".

[Catsup]

The original body has died. The original mind, however, is still very much alive.

not true, because the original mind which includes the original's "ability to become conscious" died with the original brain. You have a clone that is similar in every possible way, except they have their own "ability to become conscious" that is unique from that of the original.

It took you that long to realize?

no one has directly stated it, i've realized it for quite some time, im stating it now.

The object of discussion is a very unrealistic hypothetical situation. It's kinda pointless to keep to realism here.

last i checked this was a general threads section where we talk about real life, but the original post did very much explain that this was a hypothetical discussion about a hypothetical situation, i'll give you that.

Who cares about the instance as long as the program runs?

im not sure, why did 80% of the ppl vote that they didnt want to die and have some imposter "instance" take their place?

It truly cannot enlighten anyone. All you have given is three context-free terms that are linguistically close to whatever it is you are meaning (you didn't even specify what you are synonymizing), all of them proxying to at least one ill-defined concept ("alive" or "self"), which makes them even more ill-defined than they are already by lack of context. It's like trying to clarify the meaning of "dog" by saying that it is synonymous to "canine", "cat" and "dog with a tail".

no, that is all that you quoted, i elaborated and then gave those 3 as examples in the original post. Im not very good with words so i wrote whatever i "felt", most ppl can understand what i meant quite well if reading the original post and seeing what i was replying to.

[Graknorke]

Who cares about the instance as long as the program runs?

im not sure, why did 80% of the ppl vote that they didnt want to die and have some imposter "instance" take their place?

I voted no because I know that I would be apprehensive of the procedure, even though logically there is not any particular problem with it. Ten dollars is not worth how much I would probably end up working myself up.

[MagmaMcFry]

The original body has died. The original mind, however, is still very much alive.

not true, because the original mind which includes the original's "ability to become conscious" died with the original brain. You have a clone that is similar in every possible way, except they have their own "ability to become conscious" that is unique from that of the original.

If you accept the word "mind" to mean what I repeatedly defined it to mean, then my statement is perfectly true. You can't just go ahead and change the definitions I base my statements upon. That's a fallacy as well as a dick move.

Who cares about the instance as long as the program runs?

im not sure, why did 80% of the ppl vote that they didnt want to die and have some imposter "instance" take their place?

Because it's perfectly okay to not want to die and have some impostor replace you, and because they (like you) failed to see that the poll situation is not actually what they thought they were voting about (edit: or because they have emotion diarrhea?).

It truly cannot enlighten anyone. All you have given is three context-free terms that are linguistically close to whatever it is you are meaning (you didn't even specify what you are synonymizing), all of them proxying to at least one ill-defined concept ("alive" or "self"), which makes them even more ill-defined than they are already by lack of context. It's like trying to clarify the meaning of "dog" by saying that it is synonymous to "canine", "cat" and "dog with a tail".

no, that is all that you quoted, i elaborated and then gave those 3 as examples in the original post. Im not very good with words so i wrote whatever i "felt", most ppl can understand what i meant quite well if reading the original post and seeing what i was replying to.

We already established that we can't continue discussing when people rampantly equivocate. Please stop doing that, right now.

[Catsup]

If you accept the word "mind" to mean what I repeatedly defined it to mean, then my statement is perfectly true. You can't just go ahead and change the definitions I base my statements upon. That's a fallacy as well as a dick move.

then i misworded it, your definition of mind refers to the collection of memory. My definition of what i was referring to refers to the collection of memory in addition to awareness and ability to observe new memory, and the ability to react to stimuli.

based on your original definition of mind, i dont think a simple collection of memories can be called "alive" on its own.

Because it's perfectly okay to not want to die and have some impostor replace you, and because they (like you) failed to see that the poll situation is not actually what they thought they were voting about (edit: or because they have emotion diarrhea?).

so everyone has emotion diarrhea but you, and you view the poll as valid despite it misleading the majority of ppl who voted? and im the one rampantly equivocating eh?

We already established that we can't continue discussing when people rampantly equivocate. Please stop doing that, right now.

so we can do a logical discussion using make-belief and hypothetical arguments in a thread about realistic cloning, but we cant express our meaning in any other ways than that which you understand?