|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 2:13:03 GMT -5
What would happen if an exact copy was made of your brain? Both of you can't share the same consciousness. Which one is you? This implies there is a part of the human mind that is unique for each individual that cannot be duplicated.
This seems to create a paradox. Every human being is a complex pattern of matter and energy. A pattern can be duplicated. Therefore there must be a single unique entity that defines a single individual consciousness. But what attaches that entity to a single human being? It's clear this is leading to an infinite loop.
I'm not trying to push any particular viewpoint, I'm just curious what people think of this thought experiment.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 19, 2009 2:34:09 GMT -5
::headasplode::
I dunno, maybe you'd end up split in two, like a "good" and "evil" 'you'.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 19, 2009 2:46:16 GMT -5
What would happen if an exact copy was made of your brain? Both of you can't share the same consciousness. Which one is you? This implies there is a part of the human mind that is unique for each individual that cannot be duplicated. This seems to create a paradox. Every human being is a complex pattern of matter and energy. A pattern can be duplicated. Therefore there must be a single unique entity that defines a single individual consciousness. But what attaches that entity to a single human being? It's clear this is leading to an infinite loop. I'm not trying to push any particular viewpoint, I'm just curious what people think of this thought experiment. I'll go on the assumption that you are ignoring the fact that we can't know the exact state of all of our constituents (quantum uncertainty). Then I would say they are both you, until the point that the duplicate was created at which point you are separate people. Both of you are you, but neither of you are who you were. In fact, none of us are who we were just a moment ago, we are always changing. I feel that I'm not making much sense, if so, let me know. I feel very strange at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 3:02:48 GMT -5
In fact, none of us are who we were just a moment ago, we are always changing. But which one's experiences do you continue to experience?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Apr 19, 2009 3:16:34 GMT -5
Unless this were some kind of parallel universe deal, neither of our situations would be exactly the same. Ergo, we would turn out differently. If it WAS some kind of parallel universe deal then YES, we do have the same thoughts and opinions. We have the same consciousness. This is because we don't 'share' it, it is a result of chemical reactions taking place within our own brains.
There is no implication, because you simply assumed that 2 people having the exact same conscious self was impossible.
After that point, your post degenerates. I have no idea what you are trying to say. "A pattern can be duplicated but because of this, it must be single and unique"? WTF? And this isn't really an "experiment."
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 19, 2009 3:20:04 GMT -5
In fact, none of us are who we were just a moment ago, we are always changing. But which one's experiences do you continue to experience? I'm assuming by you, the meaning is the original. The original continues to experience the experiences surrounding the original body, whereas the copy experiences those around the copy. Experiences are determined by environment, perceptions are determined by who we are (which is determined by previous experiences....>.>)
|
|
|
Post by mice34 on Apr 19, 2009 3:52:50 GMT -5
In fact, none of us are who we were just a moment ago, we are always changing. But which one's experiences do you continue to experience? The first one. One body, one consciousness. (And I don't believe in consciousness without a body.) Back to nuitarihw, Right, that's also how I'd put it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 19, 2009 9:18:33 GMT -5
In fact, none of us are who we were just a moment ago, we are always changing. But which one's experiences do you continue to experience? They'd be separate individuals at this point and both would likely consider themself "you."
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 10:02:07 GMT -5
Unless this were some kind of parallel universe deal, neither of our situations would be exactly the same. Ergo, we would turn out differently. If it WAS some kind of parallel universe deal then YES, we do have the same thoughts and opinions. We have the same consciousness. This is because we don't 'share' it, it is a result of chemical reactions taking place within our own brains. The instant the copy is created it's brain is in the exact same state as the original. They immediately start to diverge because of different input. What I am trying to say is how does this feel from a subjective point of view? Some people said they would experience the original but if you go back to that instant when the brains were in the exact same state, what made them different?
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Apr 19, 2009 11:50:17 GMT -5
What would happen if an exact copy was made of your brain? Both of you can't share the same consciousness. Which one is you?They would both be you, or at least believe themselves to be you, which really amounts to the same thing. I hope your not trying to say that consciousness=soul and is not capable of being duplicated. This implies there is a part of the human mind that is unique for each individual that cannot be duplicated.Oops, that is what you are trying to say isn't it? Ohh and then, "This implies", what implies? Your unsupported hypothetical statement that something unseen and untestable cannot be duplicated is now evidence for your contention that it cannot be? 'Holy circular logic Batman!' This seems to create a paradox.Only if someone takes your unsupported statements as fact. Every human being is a complex pattern of matter and energy. A pattern can be duplicated.No argument here. Therefore there must be a single unique entity that defines a single individual consciousness.Where is there any evidence for this statement at all? It must be true because you state that it is? It is just as likely that both of you would in fact be you and be identical in concious thought until their experiences diverged. But what attaches that entity to a single human being? It's clear this is leading to an infinite loop.No, sorry I fail to see anything of the sort, all I see is presumption not based upon logic or fact. I'm not trying to push any particular viewpoint, I'm just curious what people think of this thought experiment.Well except possibly for your unstated viewpoint that conciousness exists seperate from the body. This is sort of the old "Star Trek" transporter conundrum that has been argued for years. That one states that the transporter does not actually transport you intact but rather disassembles you to atomic components and then assembles a copy of you at the other end. Since it is a copy of you did the real you die? Is it still you? Do you still have the same conciousness then?
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Apr 19, 2009 11:57:04 GMT -5
Unless this were some kind of parallel universe deal, neither of our situations would be exactly the same. Ergo, we would turn out differently. If it WAS some kind of parallel universe deal then YES, we do have the same thoughts and opinions. We have the same consciousness. This is because we don't 'share' it, it is a result of chemical reactions taking place within our own brains. The instant the copy is created it's brain is in the exact same state as the original. They immediately start to diverge because of different input. What I am trying to say is how does this feel from a subjective point of view? Some people said they would experience the original but if you go back to that instant when the brains were in the exact same state, what made them different? I think you hit on the idea, but didn't delve deeply enough into it. If it were possible to create an exact duplicate of oneself, at the moment the duplicate was created, one would indeed be a copy of the other. But unless there was a link between the two, each would have its own separate identity. Think about it this way. Consider two computers. Yeah, I know, but bear with me for the point of illustration. One computer has been used for quite some time and has accumulated a vast array of information. Now, a second computer has been formatted that has been configured exactly the same as the original and has been loaded with the exact same data as the original. At that point, they are identical, one being a copy of the other. Now, unless those computers are linked together on a network, they will, as you stated, diverge. Each will still retain the information (memories) prior to the duplication, but from that point on, they are separate and unique. The data acquired afterward will probably be quite different and at some point in the future, they will likely not be even close to resembling each other except in outward appearance. At least that's the way I look at this type of situation.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 19, 2009 12:00:55 GMT -5
But which one's experiences do you continue to experience? The first one. One body, one consciousness. (And I don't believe in consciousness without a body.) But the copy would have all of your memories, meaning that from the perspective of the copy, HE is the one who's continuing the chain of experience from before the copying. (There's a really creepy exploration of this question in the movie The Prestige)
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 19, 2009 12:04:54 GMT -5
What would happen if an exact copy was made of your brain? Both of you can't share the same consciousness. Which one is you? This implies there is a part of the human mind that is unique for each individual that cannot be duplicated. This seems to create a paradox. Every human being is a complex pattern of matter and energy. A pattern can be duplicated. Therefore there must be a single unique entity that defines a single individual consciousness. But what attaches that entity to a single human being? It's clear this is leading to an infinite loop. I'm not trying to push any particular viewpoint, I'm just curious what people think of this thought experiment. The thing is, it's impossible to prove to anyone but yourself that you even HAVE consciousness. To look at it another way, let's say there was a computer with the hardware to give it senses similar to ours (it has cameras to see, microphones to hear, internal sensors that detect damage, etc.) and an AI sophisticated enough to make sense of that sensory input and communicate in language. Would that computer have consciousness? If not, what makes humans different?
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 12:16:28 GMT -5
What would happen if an exact copy was made of your brain? Both of you can't share the same consciousness. Which one is you?They would both be you, or at least believe themselves to be you, which really amounts to the same thing. I hope your not trying to say that consciousness=soul and is not capable of being duplicated. I pointed out that that argument doesn't work. If you say that you need a soul for each individual that doesn't explain why that soul would be associated with that particular individual. I was trying to say that that argument doesn't work and I want a different explanation. This implies there is a part of the human mind that is unique for each individual that cannot be duplicated.Oops, that is what you are trying to say isn't it? Actually I was trying to make that claim just to say it didn't make sense. Ohh and then, "This implies", what implies? Your unsupported hypothetical statement that something unseen and untestable cannot be duplicated is now evidence for your contention that it cannot be? 'Holy circular logic Batman!' lol It was 3am when I wrote this. I was kind of rambling but I was trying to avoid sounding like I was trying to claim the existence a soul by preemptively saying it was redundant and didn't really explain anything. I kind of failed at that. But what attaches that entity to a single human being? It's clear this is leading to an infinite loop.No, sorry I fail to see anything of the sort, all I see is presumption not based upon logic or fact. Sorry, I was pretty unclear there. I meant this: You could make the claim that consciousness is a non-physical entity as an attempt to explain the transporter conundrum. Now you have two bodies and two souls but there is nothing unique about each body to explain which consciousness it has. What I meant by infinite loop is that you are really right back where you started.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 12:27:37 GMT -5
Think about it this way. Consider two computers. Yeah, I know, but bear with me for the point of illustration. One computer has been used for quite some time and has accumulated a vast array of information. Now, a second computer has been formatted that has been configured exactly the same as the original and has been loaded with the exact same data as the original. At that point, they are identical, one being a copy of the other. Now, unless those computers are linked together on a network, they will, as you stated, diverge. Each will still retain the information (memories) prior to the duplication, but from that point on, they are separate and unique. The data acquired afterward will probably be quite different and at some point in the future, they will likely not be even close to resembling each other except in outward appearance. Let's say there are ten parallel universes, each one exactly the same as the others. Would there be anything unethical about destroying all but one?
|
|