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

[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.

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.

Even your own definition of mind cannot differentiate between the mind of the original body and the mind of the copy. My statement is very well true.

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

I used the word "alive" in this situation because you used the word "dead" in the very same situation, and I thought you would understand what you mean if you expect me to understand what you mean. Since you don't, let me rephrase that in my own terms:
The original body has died. The original mind, however, is still readily accessible to a consciousness.
EDIT: Also, a "mind", satisfying your definition of "mind", can't be alive either.

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?

No, the emotion diarrhea was specifically referring to Graknorke. Sorry for the confusion there. And the question was not misleading, it's just that the majority of people didn't think through the complete ramifications of mind-copying before they voted.

and im the one rampantly equivocating eh?

Yes.

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?

This thread was never about realistic cloning. And all I'm trying to do is to stop you from being able to trip yourself up in logical fallacies, so that I don't have to spend half my posts untangling you again.

[Catsup]

Even your own definition of mind cannot differentiate between the mind of the original body and the mind of the copy. My statement is very well true.

no one is trying to differentiate between the original and the copy using memory (i even said if everything was the same, including memory). Im simply saying the copy does not have the same "consciousness" as the original because each brain's "ability to create consciousness" is unique.

The original body has died. The original mind, however, is still readily accessible to a consciousness.

"a consciousness" this phrase here is very significant. You are considered "dead" if its the consciousness of anyone other than your original's brain.

This thread was never about realistic cloning.

the title is "consciousness and brain transfers", the OP just says its continuing off another thread, and has no other information. The poll is about a clone replacing you.

[MagmaMcFry]

Even your own definition of mind cannot differentiate between the mind of the original body and the mind of the copy. My statement is very well true.

no one is trying to differentiate between the original and the copy using memory (i even said if everything was the same, including memory). Im simply saying the copy does not have the same "consciousness" as the original because each brain's "ability to create consciousness" is unique.

That ability isn't unique. After all, the clone brain's ability is identical to the original brain's ability.

The original body has died. The original mind, however, is still readily accessible to a consciousness.

"a consciousness" this phrase here is very significant. You are considered "dead" if its the consciousness of anyone other than your original's brain.

Again with the equivocation, this time with "You". Also, you are doing the homeopathy thing again.

This thread was never about realistic cloning.

the title is "consciousness and brain transfers", the OP just says its continuing off another thread, and has no other information. The poll is about a clone replacing you.

Excuse me for not copy/pasting the entire thing from the sad thread. I somehow forgot that everyone should double-check their topic's integrity before you deign to post in them.

[Catsup]

That ability isn't unique. After all, it is identical to the original brain's ability.

identical such that it would be experimentally impossible to tell, but you (the original) would still know because you cannot sense stimuli that affect the clone's body.

Human consciousness is tricky to explain because we are a little bit different than other animals. Another poster described it as an "illusion of being alive" which i think explains it well, you cannot recreate the exact same instance of that illusion once its been broken.

"a consciousness" this phrase here is very significant. You (the original, who is posting in this thread right now) are considered "dead" if its the consciousness of anyone other than your original's brain.

fixed

Excuse me for not copy/pasting the entire thing from the sad thread. I somehow forgot that everyone should double-check their topic's integrity before you deign to post in them.

i think the title was pretty self explanatory, my first post on the first page should explain what i thought it was about.

[Eric Blank]

You're both dividing up each other's quotes and independently arguing against these individual segments of text. This argument is visibly starting to get out of hand. You should both take a breather and find something else to do.

[Scoops Novel]

Eric, you're sig text is becoming disturbingly relevant.

[MagmaMcFry]

Human consciousness is tricky to explain because we are a little bit different than other animals. Another poster described it as an "illusion of being alive" which i think explains it well, you cannot recreate the exact same instance of that illusion once its been broken.

So you are only alive as long as your instance of consciousness remains the same? You have a different instance of consciousness every time you wake up. Why does this not bother you?

"a consciousness" this phrase here is very significant. You (the original, who is posting in this thread right now) are considered "dead" if its the consciousness of anyone other than your original's brain.

You're still mixing up "Your body" and "Your mind". Let's recap the entire statement:

You are considered dead if your mind is only accessible by consciousnesses other than your own body's.

If you are referring to "your body", then that statement is true if and only if you don't have any live copies. But if you are referring to "your mind", then that statement, used as a definition of "dead", is not well-defined: The copy's mind is equal to the original's mind, therefore this sentence should apply equally well to the post-copy original and the copy:

• The post-copy original's mind is considered "dead" when it is only accessible by other consciousnesses than the post-copy original's brain's consciousness.
• The copy's mind is considered "dead" if it is only accessible by other consciousnesses than the copy's brain's consciousness.

According to the first statement, the mind is dead. But according to the second statement, the mind is alive. So the mind is both dead and alive at once. Huh.

You're both dividing up each other's quotes and independently arguing against these individual segments of text. This argument is visibly starting to get out of hand. You should both take a breather and find something else to do.

Well, they are individual statements, and it's hard to argue against something if you can't show against which statement you are arguing. But yeah, this sort of discussion tends to gradually sift out the points that are decided for one side (because the other side runs out of arguments), and the things that take longest to reconcile are straw men and metadiscussions.

[Catsup]

So you are only alive as long as your instance of consciousness remains the same? You have a different instance of consciousness every time you wake up. Why does this not bother you?

you focused on the wrong part of that post, and i didnt explain what "consciousness" meant. I mean humans have the ability to think and reason, the ability to analyze stimuli which animals cannot. Even if you and your clone both have the ability to do this and are often in sync because of the same mind/memory there will be quite a few times when the analysis may be different. Its for this reason that your clone cannot be completely the same as the original.

You're still mixing up "Your body" and "Your mind". Let's recap the entire statement:

You are considered dead if your mind is only accessible by consciousnesses other than your own body's.

yea that part was not well explained since we have different definitions of "consciousness", so i'll explain it in another way:
"you (the original) are considered dead if your original brain cannot be aware (cannot perceive or analyze) of your own mind (memories) anymore."

your copy still has access to your mind, but as explained in the first part of this post, that person is not you.
 

[Graknorke]

Humans are animals, and we're not the only ones that analyse stimuli.
If we were just about everything with a ventral nervous system would not be able to survive.

[Lysabild]

(because the other side runs out of arguments)

Is this 'other side' is everyone who disagrees?

I mean, I made a fairly simple line of questions, made my opinion clear, got my answers and came to the conclusion that we weren't going to agree on both what a mind is and what a person constitutes.

So further discussion is pointless, because you're of a very different world view that contradicts mine (And those I know, I initiated the same conversation with my brother and another friend and we all came to my first conclusion, that the original will always be the original and if the original dies, then that is a person who have died, even if the clone carries on as you and no one knows.)

[Catsup]

Humans are animals, and we're not the only ones that analyse stimuli.
If we were just about everything with a ventral nervous system would not be able to survive.

well yea, when i mentioned humans in comparison to animals, it was mainly to highlight that we have a unique form of consciousness when compared to animals.

even if you perfectly clone an animal and put them in a situation like hunting or defending against a predator compared to it's original, they may not make exactly the same moves in the same situation.

my point is, since animals dont have this unique consciousness (or at least not as much, relatively) it doesnt matter that animal clones are different from each other, and they may as well be the same. It doesnt work like that for humans.

[Graknorke]

Humans are animals, and we're not the only ones that analyse stimuli.
If we were just about everything with a ventral nervous system would not be able to survive.

well yea, when i mentioned humans in comparison to animals, it was mainly to highlight that we have a unique form of consciousness when compared to animals.

even if you perfectly clone an animal and put them in a situation like hunting or defending against a predator compared to it's original, they may not make exactly the same moves in the same situation.

my point is, since animals dont have this unique consciousness (or at least not as much, relatively) it doesnt matter that animal clones are different from each other, and they may as well be the same. It doesnt work like that for humans.

What?
Animals think. Inputs go into the brain from various sensory organs, the brain does some fancy electrically charged stuff, then sends outputs to various muscles etc.

[Catsup]

What?
Animals think. Inputs go into the brain from various sensory organs, the brain does some fancy electrically charged stuff, then sends outputs to various muscles etc.

they survive through instinct, they arent able to reason or ponder if their clone is them or not. Their brain does not produce consciousness in such a way that gives them an illusion of being alive.

[DeKaFu]

What?
Animals think. Inputs go into the brain from various sensory organs, the brain does some fancy electrically charged stuff, then sends outputs to various muscles etc.

they survive through instinct, they arent able to reason or ponder if their clone is them or not. Their brain does not produce consciousness in such a way that gives them an illusion of being alive.

I disagree with this. Intelligence and consciousness (including recognition of self) is a spectrum, and different animals fall in all sorts of places along it, humans included. We really don't know enough about non-human animal minds to make these kinds of assumptions.

[Catsup]

I disagree with this. Intelligence and consciousness (including recognition of self) is a spectrum, and different animals fall in all sorts of places along it, humans included. We really don't know enough about non-human animal minds to make these kinds of assumptions.

which is why i said it was relative in my first statement. Some animals are indeed quite smart and may have limited self-awareness.