Also, it doesn't take believing in a soul to believe that a perfect copy of a person is still just a copy and not the real thing, it just matters more if you do.
Of course it doesn't - but the person you're believing it about might think you an asshole for it. And in larger terms, you're outright rejecting logic because no case can be made that doesn't come down to "well it wasn't born of a women" or some other spuriousness.
There are more cases being made here for the concepts of "original consciousnesses" and "souls" than anything you have ever produced.
Define "soul."
If it's anything along the lines of "that which is inherent to a person, but is not, by any means, measurable or definable." Then it's a pretty useless concept.
Call it whatever the FUCK you want, I don't care, but realize there is a clear difference between me being me, and you being you. I do not percieve the world as you, and you do not percieve the world as me. Nor can you ever. THe same thing goes between and original and a copy. They do not share perceptions, and the perceptions of each instance of a copy is unique to itself. This to me, is the essence of soul.
Measureable? No. Because if it was someone would try to make a fucking copy of it. And you can't. Hence the point of the whole argument.
Also, it doesn't take believing in a soul to believe that a perfect copy of a person is still just a copy and not the real thing, it just matters more if you do.
Of course it doesn't - but the person you're believing it about might think you an asshole for it. And in larger terms, you're outright rejecting logic because no case can be made that doesn't come down to "well it wasn't born of a women" or some other spuriousness.
You're going with religious definitions of soul. Stop being retarded.
Also, it doesn't take believing in a soul to believe that a perfect copy of a person is still just a copy and not the real thing, it just matters more if you do.
Of course it doesn't - but the person you're believing it about might think you an asshole for it. And in larger terms, you're outright rejecting logic because no case can be made that doesn't come down to "well it wasn't born of a women" or some other spuriousness.
You're going with religious definitions of soul. Stop being retarded.
So what is the definition of a soul? If not a religious definition, then what definition would be appropriate? How about 'none' because presuming there is no religious thing like a soul, then your consciousness is emergent from your brain.
I would say that if you got right down to it, the only value anything has is that ascribed to it by something. The only reason the copy is less valuable then the original is because we value the original over the copy, but the only reason the copy is worth anything in the first place is because we value it.
You place more value on the means rather than the end. Rather than putting the emphasis on the actual end product, and its effectiveness at whatever, you put more import on the conceptualization leading to its creation which you don't find as inherent in the copy.
Also, it doesn't take believing in a soul to believe that a perfect copy of a person is still just a copy and not the real thing, it just matters more if you do.
Of course it doesn't - but the person you're believing it about might think you an asshole for it. And in larger terms, you're outright rejecting logic because no case can be made that doesn't come down to "well it wasn't born of a women" or some other spuriousness.
You're going with religious definitions of soul. Stop being retarded.
So what is the definition of a soul? If not a religious definition, then what definition would be appropriate? How about 'none' because presuming there is no religious thing like a soul, then your consciousness is emergent from your brain.
Soul is not a religious thing, in my opinion. But maybe you believe that.
Measureable? No. Because if it was someone would try to make a fucking copy of it. And you can't. Hence the point of the whole argument.
But if it isn't measurable, how do you know it's there? What is it? If those questions can't be answered, how can it be important?
We can't measure it, but we come across problems when we deal with originals and perfect copies of human beings as was seen in the thread.
Only because people view the two as different, without an adequate reason as to why. Why would a person regard a perfect copy of a human being differently from the original?
Really, this is all coming back to the question of why anyone would value an original and a perfect copy differently. I can't think of any reason to do so, and none have been presented.
I would say that if you got right down to it, the only value anything has is that ascribed to it by something. The only reason the copy is less valuable then the original is because we value the original over the copy, but the only reason the copy is worth anything in the first place is because we value it.
You place more value on the means rather than the end. Rather than putting the emphasis on the actual end product, and its effectiveness at whatever, you put more import on the conceptualization leading to its creation which you don't find as inherent in the copy.
When it comes to copies or the original, I put the same amount of value into both, but if I had to choose between one or the other I choose the original because I value the point of it being original over the point of it being a copy. Like I said, value is just a perception.
When it comes down to artwork, perception is the most important thing. Being the original makes a painting more valuable then its copy because it's the original. It's the same reason we value the original over an imperfect copy thats imperfection is so minute as to be worthless.
When it comes to copies or the original, I put the same amount of value into both, but if I had to choose between one or the other I choose the original because I value the point of it being original over the point of it being a copy.
Also, it doesn't take believing in a soul to believe that a perfect copy of a person is still just a copy and not the real thing, it just matters more if you do.
Of course it doesn't - but the person you're believing it about might think you an asshole for it. And in larger terms, you're outright rejecting logic because no case can be made that doesn't come down to "well it wasn't born of a women" or some other spuriousness.
You're going with religious definitions of soul. Stop being retarded.
So what is the definition of a soul? If not a religious definition, then what definition would be appropriate? How about 'none' because presuming there is no religious thing like a soul, then your consciousness is emergent from your brain.
Soul is not a religious thing, in my opinion. But maybe you believe that.
So what is it? Have you noted that at every stage of my argument I've stated "unless we presume consciousness is not the result of the brain and instead of something like a soul which is inseparable/uncopiable", but in that case you have to either prove their is a soul or merely state you believe there is a soul.
When it comes to copies or the original, I put the same amount of value into both, but if I had to choose between one or the other I choose the original because I value the point of it being original over the point of it being a copy.
Measureable? No. Because if it was someone would try to make a fucking copy of it. And you can't. Hence the point of the whole argument.
But if it isn't measurable, how do you know it's there? What is it? If those questions can't be answered, how can it be important?
We can't measure it, but we come across problems when we deal with originals and perfect copies of human beings as was seen in the thread.
Only because people view the two as different, without an adequate reason as to why. Why would a person regard a perfect copy of a human being differently from the original?
Really, this is all coming back to the question of why anyone would value an original and a perfect copy differently. I can't think of any reason to do so, and none have been presented.
Because their is a chance that one consciousness stops while another starts. With teleporters it comes right down to if your willing to risk your own personal existence. Otherwise neither has more value then the original then someone puts on it.
I think one should value a copy the same as the original, but that doesn't stop me from putting more value on the original then the copy.
I think one should value a copy the same as the original, but that doesn't stop me from putting more value on the original then the copy.
The copy will obviously be newer, and everyone knows that newer is better. Especially when we're talking about human brain states.
But old things have character; and I don't care what anybody says, I much rather have a old, worthless family heirloom then a newer version of the same thing that actually works.
The copy will obviously be newer, and everyone knows that newer is better. Especially when we're talking about human brain states.
But old things have character; and I don't care what anybody says, I much rather have a old, worthless family heirloom then a newer version of the same thing that actually works.
Well, I was being somewhat facetious: for me to say a "newer" version of something is better, when they are identical copies, is arbitrary - as arbitrary as saying that the "older" version is better. Your heirloom example is totally different, because the two things aren't copies at all.
Because their is a chance that one consciousness stops while another starts.
I assume you've never done a "natural whippet" (because hopefully most people weren't as stupid as I was in college). Basically, you stand against a wall and hold your breath while tensing all your muscles, and your friends push against your chest. After 7-8 seconds, you pass out. You wake up again in 5-10 seconds, and your mind is absolutely convinced that hours and hours have passed. "OK... Holding my breath... Holding my breath... Holding my breath... Fuck! I fell asleep! It must be like 8am! Wait a minute, everyone is still here. It's still ten o'clock..."
Anyway, what's the difference between the obvious gap in consciousness in the scenario I described, and being taken apart and put back together a second later? Except, that presumably, you'd never even notice? What about the sensation of falling asleep every night and (immediately, it seems) waking back up again 8 hours later?
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
The copy will obviously be newer, and everyone knows that newer is better. Especially when we're talking about human brain states.
But old things have character; and I don't care what anybody says, I much rather have a old, worthless family heirloom then a newer version of the same thing that actually works.
Well, I was being somewhat facetious: for me to say a "newer" version of something is better, when they are identical copies, is arbitrary - as arbitrary as saying that the "older" version is better. Your heirloom example is totally different, because the two things aren't copies at all.
Because their is a chance that one consciousness stops while another starts.
I assume you've never done a "natural whippet" (because hopefully most people weren't as stupid as I was in college). Basically, you stand against a wall and hold your breath while tensing all your muscles, and your friends push against your chest. After 7-8 seconds, you pass out. You wake up again in 5-10 seconds, and your mind is absolutely convinced that hours and hours have passed. "OK... Holding my breath... Holding my breath... Holding my breath... Fuck! I fell asleep! It must be like 8am! Wait a minute, everyone is still here. It's still ten o'clock..."
Anyway, what's the difference between the obvious gap in consciousness in the scenario I described, and being taken apart and put back together a second later? Except, that presumably, you'd never even notice? What about the sensation of falling asleep every night and (immediately, it seems) waking back up again 8 hours later?
Your brain's still active while your asleep or passed out. This still leaves the question of coma; but my point is that although it's a perfect copy it's still a copy and if given the chance to use a teleporter or a brain uploader thing, I would decline because of the chance my consciousness might not spark back on so to speak.
The main thing is their is no way of knowing exactly what would happen or if for that matter we all 'die' when we sleep and going through a teleporter is no different. You could say I'm arguing from a sense of caution.
Of course if teleporters ever did get invented I would say use it if you wanted.
Also, my heirloom thing was more of a joke.
Abysmal Lynx on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
This still leaves the question of coma; but my point is that although it's a perfect copy it's still a copy and if given the chance to use a teleporter or a brain uploader thing, I would decline because of the chance my consciousness might not spark back on so to speak.
So, you're afraid that the light might go out--that the machine might go on, but with a different ghost (or none at all!).
I'm not sure this fear is coherent, because the whole concept of a ghost in the machine is pretty worthless. Dualism is the lose.
Also, it doesn't take believing in a soul to believe that a perfect copy of a person is still just a copy and not the real thing, it just matters more if you do.
Of course it doesn't - but the person you're believing it about might think you an asshole for it. And in larger terms, you're outright rejecting logic because no case can be made that doesn't come down to "well it wasn't born of a women" or some other spuriousness.
You're going with religious definitions of soul. Stop being retarded.
So what is the definition of a soul? If not a religious definition, then what definition would be appropriate? How about 'none' because presuming there is no religious thing like a soul, then your consciousness is emergent from your brain.
Soul is not a religious thing, in my opinion. But maybe you believe that.
So what is it? Have you noted that at every stage of my argument I've stated "unless we presume consciousness is not the result of the brain and instead of something like a soul which is inseparable/uncopiable", but in that case you have to either prove their is a soul or merely state you believe there is a soul.
First, provide evidence for your own shit. You have never given a single shred of evidence.
Dude. You're the one making a positive claim, vis-a-vis the existence of souls, or some other magical wossname that distinguishes an original object from a 'copy' identical right to the quarks. Burden of proof's on you.
Dude. You're the one making a positive claim, vis-a-vis the existence of souls, or some other magical wossname that distinguishes an original object from a 'copy' identical right to the quarks. Burden of proof's on you.
Theres souls, and then theres souls.
Look, clearly you guys can't deal with that word, so I'm not using it anymore.
Copies are not originals. Yes, even if they are perfectly indistinguishable for the original. Why? Causation. A copy couldn't have been made if there was no original. The original is older than the copy.
Does it matter? If it matters to at least one person, then it matters. If it didn't matter to anyone in the universe, it wouldn't matter. But it will always matter to at least one person, the original itself. So it does matter. So it always will.
It does not matter if the original is an inanimate object. There is no fundamental difference between animate objects and inanimate objects except for the fact that one may have more features than the other. A rock may not have the abilities of a human, but it has it's own history and matter reserved for itself to use, which is frankly all that is needed for it to exist in this universe. Some rocks see more activity in their entire existance than a human does in their whole life.
If you broke a human down on Earth into atoms to determine how he is built, and then using NEW atoms rebuilt him perfectly at another location on a moon of Saturn complete with all his memories, the guy at location 2 is different from the original at location 1. Yes, even if he is a perfect indistinguishable copy, because of spatial coordinates. Does it matter? Yes, it matters to one person, the poor bastard who just go broken down into atoms. Of course, he is dead now, but had he known that he would be dead by doing this it probably would have mattered to him.
The guy at location 2, while I'm sure he is happy to be existing in this new form, is just a copy. His life is a lie. He didn't really travel the world, or write brilliant books, or fucked all those chicks many years back. He did none of that, how does it feel to live knowing that everything you ever remember is nothing but a lie? If it doesn't matter to you, then why not start programming your own memories? And hell, why not just put yourself in a little virtual world where everyone around you actually can validate those memories? Just one big fantasy world! But at the cost of your humanity. Hell, the copy doesn't have to even worry about this anymore, for soon he will be broken down into atoms and a NEW copy, the copy of the copy, will be created on a distant star system. And his life too, will be nothing but a lie. He is perfect, and indistinguishable from the original copy and the original. Does it matter? It matters to the two guys who just died to make this new guy's existence, in which they play no role in developing.
The new guy in the distant star system will create his own memories, live his own life for a bit, and then try to teleport again. But now this time something goes wrong. The original for some reason is not destroyed, but a perfect indistinguishable copy is made in a chamber about 5 feet away. The copy steps out, picks up a gun and shoots his original in the head, ending his life. Has a crime been commited here? Some of you may argue no, because these two men, are perfect copies and are so indistinguishable, that it doesn't matter if one kills the other. The man lives on. And yet, the man also dies, for he is dead on the ground and bleeding from the head.
Now lets say the copy goes on to live for many more years, and one day while teleporting a similar error happens. The original is not destroyed, but a copy is made elsewhere, a perfect super copy, as perfect as perfect is. The two go on to live for 20 years, developing their own lives. One day, the homicidal copy catches up to his copy, and surprisingly that copy pulls out a revolver and blows his original's brains out. Has a crime been committed here? Some may argue, yes, because the two men have begun living completely different lives now, though they started as equals, they are not different men. They have been forced to pursue different goals, and they are now very different.
But why argue yes? The original was supposed to be dead in the first place anyway, and so long as the latest copy exists no one has really "died", but rather, a possibility has been removed.
In the end, if you really admit that the teleporting machine is essentially killing originals, killing people, then you have failed to truly make a perfect equal copy of a person and their consciousness. Sure, a consciousness can probably be copied, if the physical structures are all copies.
But god damn, it would be convenient if we had a word to describe that detached link between two very seperate, yet very super equal copies of a consciousness.
Unless the soul is an emergent property of the mind, which is itself an emergent property of the physical brain.
If you skip the physical part, and duplicate the mind, the soul could hypothetically emerge.
Or if God and company are smart enough to file a "Soul Transfer" form in the Celestial Bureaucracy...
His life is a lie.
All of our lives are lies, though, by that logic- our atoms have transitioned out of our bodies as part of the usual fuzzy shifting of the universe. Most, if not all, of our cells have died and been replaced. The only continuity we possess is that of process- and with regard to our consciousness, it can be interrupted and restarted without people contending they are not the same person as before.
It's the ancient question- if over the course of years you've replaced every component, every part of a ship, is it still the same ship as it was before? Obviously it has changed, but is it a completely different object?
I'm not the same person I was yesterday, but I'd argue there are certain key elements that define "me" that have persisted since yesterday. The problem is, I can't think of a single one of those elements that wouldn't persist in a perfect copy. My personality? Check. Appearance? Check. Memories? Check.
It is not like I consider my position in time according to some impartial observer as a part of my consciousness, or my spatial location. Everything that defines me would continue in a perfect copy. So how is it at all meaningful to say that the copy isn't me? How can I have died in that teleportation machine if I'm standing around arguing about whether or not I died on a message board?
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
And lets not even get into what would happen, if we COULDN'T make perfect super copies. Imagine if a copy was 15% different.
I don't see how that would be different from the changes that a piece of art undergoes over time. The Satue of LIberty looks very different from how it originally looked.
Couscous on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
And lets not even get into what would happen, if we COULDN'T make perfect super copies. Imagine if a copy was 15% different.
I don't see how that would be different from the changes that a piece of art undergoes over time. The Satue of LIberty looks very different from how it originally looked.
Plus, I feel like it would be incredibly difficult to gauge the "changes" in a human mind by simple percentiles. You could numerically record physical changes, but the psychological ramifications of such changes would be innately subjective, and probably something the human psyche could cope with.
And lets not even get into what would happen, if we COULDN'T make perfect super copies. Imagine if a copy was 15% different.
I don't see how that would be different from the changes that a piece of art undergoes over time. The Satue of LIberty looks very different from how it originally looked.
I do. Think about it 4 dimensionally. The Statue of liberty that stands there changing is different from a perfect copy of the statue of liberty which has been changed some what.
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
Because the mere existance of those things does not guarantee you will be those things. If we are both sentinent beings, we still cannot explain exactly why I exist as me, and why you exist as you.
And lets not even get into what would happen, if we COULDN'T make perfect super copies. Imagine if a copy was 15% different.
I don't see how that would be different from the changes that a piece of art undergoes over time. The Satue of LIberty looks very different from how it originally looked.
I do. Think about it 4 dimensionally. The Statue of liberty that stands there changing is different from a perfect copy of the statue of liberty which has been changed some what.
And lets not even get into what would happen, if we COULDN'T make perfect super copies. Imagine if a copy was 15% different.
I don't see how that would be different from the changes that a piece of art undergoes over time. The Satue of LIberty looks very different from how it originally looked.
I do. Think about it 4 dimensionally. The Statue of liberty that stands there changing is different from a perfect copy of the statue of liberty which has been changed some what.
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
Because the mere existance of those things does not guarantee you will be those things. If we are both sentinent beings, we still cannot explain exactly why I exist as me, and why you exist as you.
Yes we can. Your consciousness emerges from your brain--a wholly tangible thing.
Say you step into a machine. On the floor of the machine are two circles, and you choose to step on one. This machine copies you instantaneously and puts the copy right next to you, on the other circle. But then, let's say the memory of which circle you chose to step on is erased from both "you"s.
How do you determine which one is you? Or better yet, does it really matter which one is "the original" you?
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
Because the mere existance of those things does not guarantee you will be those things. If we are both sentinent beings, we still cannot explain exactly why I exist as me, and why you exist as you.
Yes we can. Your consciousness emerges from your brain--a wholly tangible thing.
Say you step into a machine. On the floor of the machine are two circles, and you choose to step on one. This machine copies you instantaneously and puts the copy right next to you, on the other circle. But then, let's say the memory of which circle you chose to step on is erased from both "you"s.
How do you determine which one is you? Or better yet, does it really matter which one is "the original" you?
It would matter to me. I don't want to be a copy. I want to have a timeline that doesn't begin with "emerges from a copy machine".
Instead of going on vacations, would you rather just have memories of going on vacations? Would you rather just look at pictures of places rather than going to them?
Tell me, if someone gets hit with severe amnesia and forgets all their memories with no hope of getting them back, are they the same person to you?
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
Because the mere existance of those things does not guarantee you will be those things. If we are both sentinent beings, we still cannot explain exactly why I exist as me, and why you exist as you.
Yes we can. Your consciousness emerges from your brain--a wholly tangible thing.
Say you step into a machine. On the floor of the machine are two circles, and you choose to step on one. This machine copies you instantaneously and puts the copy right next to you, on the other circle. But then, let's say the memory of which circle you chose to step on is erased from both "you"s.
How do you determine which one is you? Or better yet, does it really matter which one is "the original" you?
It would matter to me. I don't want to be a copy. I want to have a timeline that doesn't begin with "emerges from a copy machine".
Instead of going on vacations, would you rather just have memories of going on vacations? Would you rather just look at pictures of places rather than going to them?
Tell me, if someone gets hit with severe amnesia and forgets all their memories with no hope of getting them back, are they the same person to you?
You dodged the primary question, there. Why does it matter if you'll never know if you're the copy or not? The answer to this question is my answer to your question.
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
Because the mere existance of those things does not guarantee you will be those things. If we are both sentinent beings, we still cannot explain exactly why I exist as me, and why you exist as you.
Yes we can. Your consciousness emerges from your brain--a wholly tangible thing.
Say you step into a machine. On the floor of the machine are two circles, and you choose to step on one. This machine copies you instantaneously and puts the copy right next to you, on the other circle. But then, let's say the memory of which circle you chose to step on is erased from both "you"s.
How do you determine which one is you? Or better yet, does it really matter which one is "the original" you?
It would matter to me. I don't want to be a copy. I want to have a timeline that doesn't begin with "emerges from a copy machine".
Instead of going on vacations, would you rather just have memories of going on vacations? Would you rather just look at pictures of places rather than going to them?
Tell me, if someone gets hit with severe amnesia and forgets all their memories with no hope of getting them back, are they the same person to you?
You dodged the primary question, there. Why does it matter if you'll never know if you're the copy or not? The answer to this question is my answer to your question.
And no, they would not be the same person to me.
Because I would want to know. Is my life a lie or did it really happen. I wouldn't like being a copy, just as I wouldn't like being a brain in a vat with all my senses being fed to me.
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
Because the mere existance of those things does not guarantee you will be those things. If we are both sentinent beings, we still cannot explain exactly why I exist as me, and why you exist as you.
Yes we can. Your consciousness emerges from your brain--a wholly tangible thing.
Say you step into a machine. On the floor of the machine are two circles, and you choose to step on one. This machine copies you instantaneously and puts the copy right next to you, on the other circle. But then, let's say the memory of which circle you chose to step on is erased from both "you"s.
How do you determine which one is you? Or better yet, does it really matter which one is "the original" you?
It would matter to me. I don't want to be a copy. I want to have a timeline that doesn't begin with "emerges from a copy machine".
Instead of going on vacations, would you rather just have memories of going on vacations? Would you rather just look at pictures of places rather than going to them?
Tell me, if someone gets hit with severe amnesia and forgets all their memories with no hope of getting them back, are they the same person to you?
You dodged the primary question, there. Why does it matter if you'll never know if you're the copy or not? The answer to this question is my answer to your question.
And no, they would not be the same person to me.
Because I would want to know. Is my life a lie or did it really happen. I wouldn't like being a copy, just as I wouldn't like being a brain in a vat with all my senses being fed to me.
So after all that bullshit and name calling your eventual conclusion is purely subjective, much like the critic deriding the identical copy of Michaelangelo's David because he cannot imagine it being crafted by the hands of David himself. i.e. an external party to your actual consciousness i.e. you can't actually make your case or you've watched the Matrix too many times.
I don't go around attempting to convince Amish people to drive or creationists to believe in evolution, what value is there in attempting to convince someone about something like this. If the technology ever exists, he will still have to spend hours on his commute and I won't.
I promise I won't shove him into a teloporter, unless it is funny.
So after all that bullshit and name calling your eventual conclusion is purely subjective, much like the critic deriding the identical copy of Michaelangelo's David because he cannot imagine it being crafted by the hands of David himself. i.e. an external party to your actual consciousness i.e. you can't actually make your case or you've watched the Matrix too many times.
What the fuck did you expect? Did you actually think we were going to solve some major philosophical problem right here in these shitty little forums once and for all? Because if so, you are confused.
Posts
Of course it doesn't - but the person you're believing it about might think you an asshole for it. And in larger terms, you're outright rejecting logic because no case can be made that doesn't come down to "well it wasn't born of a women" or some other spuriousness.
Measureable? No. Because if it was someone would try to make a fucking copy of it. And you can't. Hence the point of the whole argument.
You're going with religious definitions of soul. Stop being retarded.
You place more value on the means rather than the end. Rather than putting the emphasis on the actual end product, and its effectiveness at whatever, you put more import on the conceptualization leading to its creation which you don't find as inherent in the copy.
But if it isn't measurable, how do you know it's there? What is it? If those questions can't be answered, how can it be important?
Soul is not a religious thing, in my opinion. But maybe you believe that.
We can't measure it, but we come across problems when we deal with originals and perfect copies of human beings as was seen in the thread.
Only because people view the two as different, without an adequate reason as to why. Why would a person regard a perfect copy of a human being differently from the original?
Really, this is all coming back to the question of why anyone would value an original and a perfect copy differently. I can't think of any reason to do so, and none have been presented.
When it comes to copies or the original, I put the same amount of value into both, but if I had to choose between one or the other I choose the original because I value the point of it being original over the point of it being a copy. Like I said, value is just a perception.
When it comes down to artwork, perception is the most important thing. Being the original makes a painting more valuable then its copy because it's the original. It's the same reason we value the original over an imperfect copy thats imperfection is so minute as to be worthless.
Does not parse.
So what is it? Have you noted that at every stage of my argument I've stated "unless we presume consciousness is not the result of the brain and instead of something like a soul which is inseparable/uncopiable", but in that case you have to either prove their is a soul or merely state you believe there is a soul.
Because their is a chance that one consciousness stops while another starts. With teleporters it comes right down to if your willing to risk your own personal existence. Otherwise neither has more value then the original then someone puts on it.
I think one should value a copy the same as the original, but that doesn't stop me from putting more value on the original then the copy.
So they're all equal, the original is just more equal. Gotcha.
The copy will obviously be newer, and everyone knows that newer is better. Especially when we're talking about human brain states.
But old things have character; and I don't care what anybody says, I much rather have a old, worthless family heirloom then a newer version of the same thing that actually works.
Well, I was being somewhat facetious: for me to say a "newer" version of something is better, when they are identical copies, is arbitrary - as arbitrary as saying that the "older" version is better. Your heirloom example is totally different, because the two things aren't copies at all.
I assume you've never done a "natural whippet" (because hopefully most people weren't as stupid as I was in college). Basically, you stand against a wall and hold your breath while tensing all your muscles, and your friends push against your chest. After 7-8 seconds, you pass out. You wake up again in 5-10 seconds, and your mind is absolutely convinced that hours and hours have passed. "OK... Holding my breath... Holding my breath... Holding my breath... Fuck! I fell asleep! It must be like 8am! Wait a minute, everyone is still here. It's still ten o'clock..."
Anyway, what's the difference between the obvious gap in consciousness in the scenario I described, and being taken apart and put back together a second later? Except, that presumably, you'd never even notice? What about the sensation of falling asleep every night and (immediately, it seems) waking back up again 8 hours later?
How can you be so sure?
Your brain's still active while your asleep or passed out. This still leaves the question of coma; but my point is that although it's a perfect copy it's still a copy and if given the chance to use a teleporter or a brain uploader thing, I would decline because of the chance my consciousness might not spark back on so to speak.
The main thing is their is no way of knowing exactly what would happen or if for that matter we all 'die' when we sleep and going through a teleporter is no different. You could say I'm arguing from a sense of caution.
Of course if teleporters ever did get invented I would say use it if you wanted.
Also, my heirloom thing was more of a joke.
So, you're afraid that the light might go out--that the machine might go on, but with a different ghost (or none at all!).
I'm not sure this fear is coherent, because the whole concept of a ghost in the machine is pretty worthless. Dualism is the lose.
First, provide evidence for your own shit. You have never given a single shred of evidence.
Theres souls, and then theres souls.
Look, clearly you guys can't deal with that word, so I'm not using it anymore.
Copies are not originals. Yes, even if they are perfectly indistinguishable for the original. Why? Causation. A copy couldn't have been made if there was no original. The original is older than the copy.
Does it matter? If it matters to at least one person, then it matters. If it didn't matter to anyone in the universe, it wouldn't matter. But it will always matter to at least one person, the original itself. So it does matter. So it always will.
It does not matter if the original is an inanimate object. There is no fundamental difference between animate objects and inanimate objects except for the fact that one may have more features than the other. A rock may not have the abilities of a human, but it has it's own history and matter reserved for itself to use, which is frankly all that is needed for it to exist in this universe. Some rocks see more activity in their entire existance than a human does in their whole life.
If you broke a human down on Earth into atoms to determine how he is built, and then using NEW atoms rebuilt him perfectly at another location on a moon of Saturn complete with all his memories, the guy at location 2 is different from the original at location 1. Yes, even if he is a perfect indistinguishable copy, because of spatial coordinates. Does it matter? Yes, it matters to one person, the poor bastard who just go broken down into atoms. Of course, he is dead now, but had he known that he would be dead by doing this it probably would have mattered to him.
The guy at location 2, while I'm sure he is happy to be existing in this new form, is just a copy. His life is a lie. He didn't really travel the world, or write brilliant books, or fucked all those chicks many years back. He did none of that, how does it feel to live knowing that everything you ever remember is nothing but a lie? If it doesn't matter to you, then why not start programming your own memories? And hell, why not just put yourself in a little virtual world where everyone around you actually can validate those memories? Just one big fantasy world! But at the cost of your humanity. Hell, the copy doesn't have to even worry about this anymore, for soon he will be broken down into atoms and a NEW copy, the copy of the copy, will be created on a distant star system. And his life too, will be nothing but a lie. He is perfect, and indistinguishable from the original copy and the original. Does it matter? It matters to the two guys who just died to make this new guy's existence, in which they play no role in developing.
The new guy in the distant star system will create his own memories, live his own life for a bit, and then try to teleport again. But now this time something goes wrong. The original for some reason is not destroyed, but a perfect indistinguishable copy is made in a chamber about 5 feet away. The copy steps out, picks up a gun and shoots his original in the head, ending his life. Has a crime been commited here? Some of you may argue no, because these two men, are perfect copies and are so indistinguishable, that it doesn't matter if one kills the other. The man lives on. And yet, the man also dies, for he is dead on the ground and bleeding from the head.
Now lets say the copy goes on to live for many more years, and one day while teleporting a similar error happens. The original is not destroyed, but a copy is made elsewhere, a perfect super copy, as perfect as perfect is. The two go on to live for 20 years, developing their own lives. One day, the homicidal copy catches up to his copy, and surprisingly that copy pulls out a revolver and blows his original's brains out. Has a crime been committed here? Some may argue, yes, because the two men have begun living completely different lives now, though they started as equals, they are not different men. They have been forced to pursue different goals, and they are now very different.
But why argue yes? The original was supposed to be dead in the first place anyway, and so long as the latest copy exists no one has really "died", but rather, a possibility has been removed.
In the end, if you really admit that the teleporting machine is essentially killing originals, killing people, then you have failed to truly make a perfect equal copy of a person and their consciousness. Sure, a consciousness can probably be copied, if the physical structures are all copies.
But god damn, it would be convenient if we had a word to describe that detached link between two very seperate, yet very super equal copies of a consciousness.
Or if God and company are smart enough to file a "Soul Transfer" form in the Celestial Bureaucracy...
All of our lives are lies, though, by that logic- our atoms have transitioned out of our bodies as part of the usual fuzzy shifting of the universe. Most, if not all, of our cells have died and been replaced. The only continuity we possess is that of process- and with regard to our consciousness, it can be interrupted and restarted without people contending they are not the same person as before.
It's the ancient question- if over the course of years you've replaced every component, every part of a ship, is it still the same ship as it was before? Obviously it has changed, but is it a completely different object?
I'm not the same person I was yesterday, but I'd argue there are certain key elements that define "me" that have persisted since yesterday. The problem is, I can't think of a single one of those elements that wouldn't persist in a perfect copy. My personality? Check. Appearance? Check. Memories? Check.
It is not like I consider my position in time according to some impartial observer as a part of my consciousness, or my spatial location. Everything that defines me would continue in a perfect copy. So how is it at all meaningful to say that the copy isn't me? How can I have died in that teleportation machine if I'm standing around arguing about whether or not I died on a message board?
If all the processes that create my identity, and all of the defining attributes of that identity have been preserved, then how can the emergent property that is "me" not still be around?
I don't see how that would be different from the changes that a piece of art undergoes over time. The Satue of LIberty looks very different from how it originally looked.
Plus, I feel like it would be incredibly difficult to gauge the "changes" in a human mind by simple percentiles. You could numerically record physical changes, but the psychological ramifications of such changes would be innately subjective, and probably something the human psyche could cope with.
I do. Think about it 4 dimensionally. The Statue of liberty that stands there changing is different from a perfect copy of the statue of liberty which has been changed some what.
Because the mere existance of those things does not guarantee you will be those things. If we are both sentinent beings, we still cannot explain exactly why I exist as me, and why you exist as you.
How would it be different?
History, for example.
Yes we can. Your consciousness emerges from your brain--a wholly tangible thing.
Say you step into a machine. On the floor of the machine are two circles, and you choose to step on one. This machine copies you instantaneously and puts the copy right next to you, on the other circle. But then, let's say the memory of which circle you chose to step on is erased from both "you"s.
How do you determine which one is you? Or better yet, does it really matter which one is "the original" you?
It would matter to me. I don't want to be a copy. I want to have a timeline that doesn't begin with "emerges from a copy machine".
Instead of going on vacations, would you rather just have memories of going on vacations? Would you rather just look at pictures of places rather than going to them?
Tell me, if someone gets hit with severe amnesia and forgets all their memories with no hope of getting them back, are they the same person to you?
You dodged the primary question, there. Why does it matter if you'll never know if you're the copy or not? The answer to this question is my answer to your question.
And no, they would not be the same person to me.
Because I would want to know. Is my life a lie or did it really happen. I wouldn't like being a copy, just as I wouldn't like being a brain in a vat with all my senses being fed to me.
So after all that bullshit and name calling your eventual conclusion is purely subjective, much like the critic deriding the identical copy of Michaelangelo's David because he cannot imagine it being crafted by the hands of David himself. i.e. an external party to your actual consciousness i.e. you can't actually make your case or you've watched the Matrix too many times.
Fuck crossfire.
I don't go around attempting to convince Amish people to drive or creationists to believe in evolution, what value is there in attempting to convince someone about something like this. If the technology ever exists, he will still have to spend hours on his commute and I won't.
I promise I won't shove him into a teloporter, unless it is funny.
What the fuck did you expect? Did you actually think we were going to solve some major philosophical problem right here in these shitty little forums once and for all? Because if so, you are confused.
Fucking
Yes, ELM is pretty obnoxious.