Existentialism

[siyan]

Say we cloned person X. Not only did we make an exact physical copy, but we also moved the entire contents of his brain over. Memories, skills, everything.

Is it the same person?

-C

[Paul Warren]

Wow, this is a popular one. You've lost me.

* Paul closes the door, leaving just echoes to dance around the room until they too are gone, leaving THE question scrawled on the bare wall with no purpose but to fade away into oblivion *

[simonm]

I think there are two possibilities of what would happen if you did the above.

1) Both X and Y would continue on as different people although they would share the same merories up to the point of cloning. From that point on they would be unique.

2) The clone would collapse in a heap like a brain dead dummy due to the fact that something was left behind. Call it consiousness, the soul or spirit etc. This would be left behind because they are not functions of the physical processes of the brain. i.e. Non-Mechanistic.

I think if (1) was true, that would be a very strong case for disproving the afterlife, reincarnation etc.

If (2) was true, it would leave the door wide open.

[Gaffer]

As a Darwinist, I'd say that they are identical. The real interesting part is what happens afterwards. Theory is that their personality and actions will differ after time if placed in a different environment.

If you did the same experiment with a kid and with a mature adult, the results would be different again...

[siyan]

What I meant was, if we kill the original, do we still have the same person with us?

By cloning and copying the brain, did we copy the consciousness?

If no, are they still the same person? Does consciousness constitue individuality?

-C

[parksie]

Only carrying the experiment out will tell us.

Perhaps if you copied one person, they'd both die, due to the same consciousness not being able to exist in two bodies.

[Guv]

Simonm: This Thread seems to imply successful cloning and transfer of the mind to the clone, doing away with your second possibility. Still I feel compelled to consider your view. If the clone dropped dead, I would assume that the process was technically flawed, not that some mystical soul had been left behind. If the process was successful, I would not consider it evidence disproving the existence of a soul, the after life, et cetera. So maybe god (little g, since I am an atheist) supplies a soul to anything which is close to being human.

The above brings to my mind another interesting off-topic question. Suppose that it were possible to artificially create a human being? Not by cloning, but by starting from scratch with basic chemical compounds synthesized in the laboratory. Would the religious among you consider it to have a soul, even though it was created solely (pun intended) by human science? If you think it has a soul, you are suggesting that the soul is not something mystical. If it does not have a soul, I suppose it has no rights as a human being. Its creator could kill it without committing a crime or a sin. For myself, I believe that human rights are derived from the nature of a human being, and I would believe that the artificial human had the same rights as naturally created humans.

All: If the result of this process is two seemingly identical adult humans, I would view one as the original and one as a copy. My view of them would be very similar to my view of identical twins at birth. Incredibly similar, but not the same individual. Each has the same rights as a human being. While I do not object to cloning a human, I would not consider using the result for spare parts.

I go with those who claim that they will become more and more different with the passage of time. Perhaps they will never be as different as the most unlike identical twins.

The artificially created adult twins would have lived through the same environment during their formative years and would start as adults with the same memories, personality, et cetera. Naturally produced identical twins start having a slightly different environment and start building different memories shortly after birth. Given similar environments after the copy was made, I would expect the artificial twins to be more similar than naturally produced twins, but would expect there to be some differences.

Still environment could have some significant effects. Suppose one lived through a Nazi concentration camp, while the other was sent to the USA to live with affluent relatives? Twenty years later you would expect to see significant differences.

BTW: The above thoughts made me empathize with one of the Star Trek characters who never used the transporter because she did not believe that the copy would really be her. Since the Star Trek transporter will never be invented, nobody will have to deal with this decision, but it is an intersting topic for speculation.

[Fox]

A copy is not the original.

It depends how you copy the thing. If you copy a file you'll get exactly the same again. You can't differ which is the original and which isn't. As soon as you <move> a file you'll just get a copy, but in your eyes it's still the original.

So if you make a exact copy of a human you'll get the same person again. But in reality there's one very small problem: Two people can't even stand on the same place... they can stand 1m from each other, but it won't ever be the same place. This first difference makes the whole thing (if they'd stand there until they die) and in reality they'll walk a different way, they'll know from each other which also changes their appearance.

So by the first step you'll get other persons than if you wouldn't copy him. And afterverbs they'll develop into other people more and more...

Short said: As long as you copy a person *exactly*, meaning at the same place, same physical and mental ability, same environment, you'll have a exact copy. If any of these things may differ, no matter how much, original and copy will no more act like the original.

[Jimmy Changas]

One jimmy changas is enough..imagine a clone of me


You cant make a clone of someone..because you cant clone that persons personality..

So say you cloned adult person (a) and made adult person (b)..you would have all the physical traits of adult person (a).. but you would have a person that has no personality of it's own... no understanding of society.. human nature..or anything..that person would have the mindset of a newborn baby..but with an adult body.

[SteveCRM]

Im sorry I haven't had time to read all posts in this thread, so don't bite my head off If I'm just repeating something.

First off, they wouldn't be the same age...just the same memory until the time of cloning(one smart little kid )

Kind of like that movie "Multiplicity" where they are talking like this: Guy1 "Hey, do you remember when we had that really bad cold last year?" Guy2 "Yeah" Guy3"OOOOh yeah that was bad"

[siyan]

Originally posted by SteveCRM
[B]
First off, they wouldn't be the same age...just the same memory until the time of cloning(one smart little kid )

Lets assume we could make an EXACT physical copy, not only genetically, but actually the same age, height, and such.

My take is that they aren't the same person. If it was the same consciousness, then its one mind controlling two people...something like that.

Call me crazy!

-C

[Technocrat]

I would say they would be both.

They would be the same person up to the moment when they "do anything". Like open there eyes after being cloned or something. Because at that moment they would no longer have the exact same memories. Lets say that they are both in beds next to each other and open there eyes at the exact same time, they would both see different parts of the roof, different lights, etc. Now their memories are different from each other, so now I would say they are no longer the same person. It is impossible from this point forward for them to experence the same things, see the same things, have the same memeries, etc. from that point on.

[siyan]

Originally posted by Technocrat
I would say they would be both.

They would be the same person up to the moment when they "do anything". Like open there eyes after being cloned or something. Because at that moment they would no longer have the exact same memories. Lets say that they are both in beds next to each other and open there eyes at the exact same time, they would both see different parts of the roof, different lights, etc. Now their memories are different from each other, so now I would say they are no longer the same person. It is impossible from this point forward for them to experence the same things, see the same things, have the same memeries, etc. from that point on.

I put them in identical, seperate rooms.

Would they act the exact same way when they wake up?

Even better, we'll make two identical clones and test those guys, and leave the original elsewhere since the medical process would be different for the original compared to the clone.

-C

[Technocrat]

Originally posted by siyan


I put them in identical, seperate rooms.

Would they act the exact same way when they wake up?

I would say no. According to the Chaos Theory it would be impossible for them to wake up the same way.

[barrk]

If the universe turns out to be just a big existential game being played out over the centuries by some giant omnipotent beings, and we are all just tokens being moved around the board for their amusement, I hope that they put all the pieces away properly when they're done, because I would hate to spend eternity smashed between the couch cushions with some stale Fruit Loops and a half-chewed Sugar Daddy.

[Guv]

Katie: You are a dear and a delight and a jewel of rare price. Your whimsical style as shown by many of your posts is a constant source of amusement. The post to this Thread is just one example.

I hope all is well or at least getting better on the home front. Welcome back.

[Tygur]

I think the better word to use is "duplicate", not "clone". Clone implies regrowing the person, and that's not what we're talking about.

[Tygur]

I'm not entirely sure what would happen if you completely duplicate someone. I'm assuming the original stays living, here. The possibilities are listed below. The first two are as you'd expect, but the last one is interesting.

A. The copy would simply be a lifeless corpse.
B. The copy would behave exactly the same as the original, but the person (soul, spirit, consciousness, whatever-you-wanna-call-it) would be different in the duplicate.
C. The original would see out the eyes of both bodies because they share a single soul, spirit, consciousness, whatever-you-wanna-call-it.


The last case would indicate that the consciousness is separate from the body all the time. For all we know, it could happen that way..

Note: This doesn't mean that I believe C is what would happen. I really don't know what would happen.

[Guv]

Tygur: For purposes of this particular thread, I thought we were assuming that an exact copy could be successfully created, eliminating your first possibility, the lifeless corpse.

It would certainly seem to be reasonable that a successful copy would act like the original for some short period of time, and might not be distinguishable for a while.

It would also seem reasonable to assume that the copy and the original would become different unless their environments could also be duplicated.

If you wish to claim that there is only one mystical soul, probably retained by the original, I cannot argue with you or agree with you. I do not grok souls.

There seems to be lots of good evidence that the consciousness is not distinct from the brain, and no good evidence that it can exist separately from the brain. Therefore, I do not consider your third possibility a valid one.

If the copy process is successful, there will be two consciousnouses.

[siyan]

Originally posted by Technocrat


I would say no. According to the Chaos Theory it would be impossible for them to wake up the same way.

Weeeiat a moment...is Chaos Theory accepted?

-C

[Guv]

Siyan: Chaos theory is considered valid, but I am not sure how applicable it is here. I suspect, but am not sure, that it is applicable.

I believe that Technocrat is saying that the separate rooms could not be made identical enough to prevent the copy and the original from being exposed to noticeably different environments.

It is not clear to me how close to identical the environments would have to be.

If the original and the clone were never allowed to come in contact with another human or animal, it seems to me that the environments could be identical enough for a while.

Chaos theory would become applicable if a TV or a large shelf of books were available. A seemingly insignificant difference in the environment or the copy process could result in the copy and the original reading different books or watching different TV channels. Once something like this happened, I would expect them to start being noticeably different.

Even one book or a TV with only one station available could result in different environmental effects. One could happen to start watching or reading slightly sooner that the other. A slight difference in temperature or a slight draft could create a distraction, causing one of them to stop reading or watching sooner.

Probably only extremely bland environments could be kept identical enough for any long period of time.

I would expect the copy and the original to eventually exhibit noticeably different behavior.

Has anybody addressed the destructive copy issue? If an exact copy is made, but the original is destroyed by the process, has the original ceased to exist, or is does the original live on in the copy? I would expect the copy to consider himself the same as the original.

[Tygur]

Guv, how do you figure that we're assuming the consciousness transfer was successful? Where in this quote do you get that:

Say we cloned person X. Not only did we make an exact physical copy, but we also moved the entire contents of his brain over. Memories, skills, everything.

I think what he means by physical part is the body, the parts you can see and touch, and I think the rest is the information stored within the brain ("Memories, skills, everything") as energy (electrical impulses, whatever). There's no mention of the consciousness coming. It sounds much like a question of "would the consciousness come," because otherwise the answer is obvious. At least if we leave out the assumption you made, we get two clear possibilities (and a third hazy one).

Now, about that third hazy possibility. I don't in any way believe that is the case, but it does seem possible (barely possible, but possible). I actually prefer to stand in the they-would-stay-the-same-at-first group, so I'm just going to drop that third possibility for now. If anyone wants to pull it back into view and rally support for it, go ahead.

What I wonder about is whether the two copies would be mentally connected somehow. I don't think we know enough about the brain to be sure.

How much do we know about the brain, anyway?

[Behemoth]

Everyone:

If I perfectly copied one of your close friends or family members, and destroyed the original without your knowledge, you would never know the difference because the memories, knowledge & skills at the time of replication would (obviously) be identical. The person (copy) themselves may never know, and will retain the memories of the original person, but is not the same, surely...

I started typing this with an argument against the idea of the clone being an exact copy, and feel I've now argued myself into it

if both copies were left alive, the would begin to differ as time goes on. Their time paths would fork away at the point of replication, until they were 2 different people - environmental effects (even the differences between 2 people standing 1mm apart) would be enough for them to differ over time...

[Guv]

Tygur: Is English a second language for you? You posted the following.

Guv, how do you figure that we're assuming the consciousness transfer was successful? Where in this quote do you get that:

The text you refer to is the following.

Say we cloned person X. Not only did we make an exact physical copy, but we also moved the entire contents of his brain over. Memories, skills, everything.

The phrase exact physical copy in addition to entire contents of his brain and Memories, skills, everything sure sounds like nothing was left out. To me, the word everything is all inclusive. Why should I not assume that the consciousness was included?

Do you believe that the consciousness exists independently of the physical brain, and further assume that everybody agrees with you? This seems to be a common belief which I consider erroneous. While many people seem to have this belief, it seems to be a matter of faith. There is no evidence supporting such a belief.

You also imply a belief in telepathy or something analogous.

What I wonder about is whether the two copies would be mentally connected somehow. I don't think we know enough about the brain to be sure.

There is a lot that we do not know about the brain, but there is no evidence supporting a belief in such a connection between physically distinct people, in spite of many efforts to show such a link.

[Tygur]

I don't believe in any of that.

All I'm saying is that the idea that the consciousness is separate is common (like you said) and it should be taken into account when looking at siyan's question.

To me, everything is everything else that is similar to memories and skills (Those two were just given as examples). Consciousness is completely different from the two.

I think the consciousness is the collective result of all the complex processes in the brain. That's why I said I support the group that says both copies wouuld start out the same.

But I'm trying to be open-minded. There is much we don't know about the brain, and I'm trying to consider all the possibilities.

[Tygur]

Originally posted by Guv
You also imply a belief in telepathy or something analogous.There is a lot that we do not know about the brain, but there is no evidence supporting a belief in such a connection between physically distinct people, in spite of many efforts to show such a link.

Maybe there isn't, but these two people aren't so physically distinct, are they? They're exactly the same. Yes, they are two copies, but that's the only difference. This is a case we simply cannot test.

I don't think the two will be so connected, but I do think it is remotely possible, given that thewre is so little we do know.


To better understand what I'm doing, check my signature about impossibilities. I prefer not to rule out possibilities just because there is no evidence for them. The lack of evidence does make the possibility highly unlikely, but not completely impossible.

[socks2001]

exis..what.


im a twin and we were seperated by 1 minute, in the conceptual space that we define as the universe.

1mm or 1 nanometre odds or sods.

we use about 10% of our brains which work by collectively using the neurons in a way objects do. Neuron A may call the properties method in neuron B and respond accordingly. Now whether there is some overriding entity that resides over all this interaction, analogous to Windows 98 or other operating system, then do we define that as the soul/spirit; an existance that has no predefined physical solidity. Would it not upon full decompostion, have a proton & neutron, or would it just be like the ether of space, an intelligent nothingness.

As a twin we are very similar in our physical make-up,
we have similar mannerisms but more worryingly is that we did have the same pin numbers , there is a connection but it has DEFINATELY got no religious conitations whatsoever. As someone earlier mention Star Trek, i believe that in a billion , squillian years time we as a human race will exist as a collective conscience. perhaps communication wont even need to be verbal. The borg. they were portrayed as evil but perhaps thats just human nature, to fear the unknown.

well never know unless we get kyrogenically frozen and thawed every 1000 years for an eternity.

its always nice to pontificate though.

now bugger off i've got a universe to run

[Tygur]

You know what? Disregard the crazy views I was presenting before. I was making a vain attempt at being open-minded (or was I just trying to make others open-minded, I don't even remember anymore) and failed bitterly. I only managed to make people misunderstand me.

This is what I believe. I'm keeping religion out of this. Consciousness is the result of all the complex processes going on in the brain. Think of the brain as a huge network of neurons. Take out some of the brain and bad things do happen, but you are still you. You may loose skills or memory, but your consciousness is still there. Loose too much or the wrong parts and everything goes wrong (death, coma, or other things). Networks of computers are the same way (They are, right?). So when you die, consciousness is gone, because activity in the brain has ceased.

So I do believe consciousness is part of the brain..

[simonm]

There seems to be lots of good evidence that the consciousness is not distinct from the brain, and no good evidence that it can exist separately from the brain. Therefore, I do not consider your third possibility a valid one.

Actually, this is still under debate. Scientists are yet to prove that the consiousness is mechanistic. They are unable to explain how the physical processes in the brain can give rise to consious experience.

This Thread seems to imply successful cloning and transfer of the mind to the clone, doing away with your second possibility.

Not so. If, as some believe, the consionsness is not a function of the brain then an exact physical copy (assuming no technical errors) would fail to function. In exactly what way I cannot say but it would lack consiounsness abd I believe this is what this thread is about.

I, personnally, don't happen to believe that consionsess is seperate from the brain but it certainly can't be dismissed.

[barrk]

Originally posted by Guv
Katie: You are a dear and a delight and a jewel of rare price. Your whimsical style as shown by many of your posts is a constant source of amusement. The post to this Thread is just one example.

I hope all is well or at least getting better on the home front. Welcome back.

Thanks! Things are getting much better at home!

[Guv]

Odd myths seem to survive forever. The following is a case in point.

Many times, I have heard the statement that we only use about 10% of our brains, and somebody posted it to this thread. I believe that this widely held belief is utter nonsense.

I do not remember ever hearing that it is 5% or 15%, but perhaps only the 10% statements made it into my long term memory.

Has anybody here heard other than 10%?

On various occasions I have asked the maker of the statement where he/she heard it. Nobody ever seems to remember the source. I once tried to research it, and could find no reasonable evidence for the claim. I could not find any reliable article that even discussed the issue.

I have concluded that the claim is erroneous. What evolutionary advantage is there to having all that unused capacity? Is there any other capability in the animal or vegetable kingdoms that is so under used?

Does any tree only use only 10% of it photosynthesis capacity? When astronauts live in a weightless environment, they start losing calcium and skeletal strength. Nature seems to have a use it or lose it design philosophy. In all other areas, natural design seem to be much more efficient.

I suspect that some researcher had reason to claim that nobody uses more than 10% of her/his brain at any given time. I think the erroneous belief is a misunderstanding of some such reasonable conclusion.

Consider that when you are playing tennis, all the brain functions relating to chess playing are inactive. When you are engaged in some sexual pursuit, all sorts of other brain functions become dysfunctional. If you are trying to pass a history exam, you do not think much about calculus. Much of your long term memory is not being consulted at any given time.

I strongly suspect that if you lost 90% of your brain power, you would be in bad shape.

On second thot, I have encountered individuals who sometimes do not seem to be using any of their intelligence, so maybe 10% is an overestimate for some people.

[parksie]

Consider that when you are playing tennis, all the brain functions relating to chess playing are inactive. When you are engaged in some sexual pursuit, all sorts of other brain functions become dysfunctional. If you are trying to pass a history exam, you do not think much about calculus. Much of your long term memory is not being consulted at any given time.

I strongly suspect that if you lost 90% of your brain power, you would be in bad shape.

Although very little is known about the specialisations of the brain - I think most of the brain is "general purpose". Analogous with a computer, there are many processors, but the main CPU is much more versatile at the expense of speed. Things like GPUs can do their own task at warp speed. For example, you can do calculations in your head relatively slowly, because the general brain is doing it, but recognising faces or voices is done by the specialised pattern-matching section. Just a couple of my random thoughts to throw into the mix.

On second thot, I have encountered individuals who sometimes do not seem to be using any of their intelligence, so maybe 10% is an overestimate for some people.

Duuuhhhhhhhhh......*dribbles* uhh...hi there....i'm mike........huh huh.....