A philosophical pondering

The mind is simply a term used to describe the mechanisms of the brain, when new ideas / thoughts accur it is simply the forging of new neuro- pathways.

When you make an exact copy of the human, presuming it was technologically possible, you will make an exact copy of the neuro-pathways, so surely the copy would have all those existing within it to the moment the copy took place. Then they take two seperate routes, forging new neuro-pathways according to their own experiences.

Are there, in this process, two 'you's? In this I take AC's approach in its absolute form, no, there is only one you, the copy is just that, a copy of you, even if it has your exact life experiences.....
 
No AC that is exactly the kind of commentary I was looking for. Very well thought out. I was most curious about what you, AOI, and Damocles would offer on the topic.

I suppose this conversation will meander into existentialism as if we must face the reality that our 'self' only last a planck unit of time then we either conclude life is meaningless as we just pass our identities to copies into the future or we construct a higher meaning and cling to that.
 
When you make an exact copy of the human, presuming it was technologically possible, you will make an exact copy of the neuro-pathways, so surely the copy would have all those existing within it to the moment the copy took place. Then they take two seperate routes, forging new neuro-pathways according to their own experiences.

Are there, in this process, two 'you's? In this I take AC's approach in its absolute form, no, there is only one you, the copy is just that, a copy of you, even if it has your exact life experiences.....

But we have no real connection with this copy. Our sense of self or identity does not continue on through this copy does it?
 
Thanks any, that was what I attempted to say.


I was beginning to wonder if I was myself since I change from instant to instant.
I guess I am never myself, by some definitions since constant change is occuring, I am always something new ? Or I am always myself but never the same....

ohhh, head beginning to hurt.....
 
IHateGovernment said:
When you make an exact copy of the human, presuming it was technologically possible, you will make an exact copy of the neuro-pathways, so surely the copy would have all those existing within it to the moment the copy took place. Then they take two seperate routes, forging new neuro-pathways according to their own experiences.

Are there, in this process, two 'you's? In this I take AC's approach in its absolute form, no, there is only one you, the copy is just that, a copy of you, even if it has your exact life experiences.....

But we have no real connection with this copy. Our sense of self or identity does not continue on through this copy does it?
Click to expand...
It could not, however the copy would have the same sense of self. You would have the closest thing to immortality, but it wouldn't be immortality. It is this consciousness that is "you". Any copy would be an entirely different individual no matter how many memories you shared.


Would the goal be to have that copy live on while your body died? I wouldn't be happy with that. They'd have to replace my hardware so that this present ideation would continue, not a copy or a transfer. It would be like having a child and considering that immortality. Even if it would be totally undetectable by those who knew me, it would not be me.
 
Right. What I wonder now is at what point have we become a copy? Is it a planck length of time is it only upon transfer to a wholly different entity?
 
IHateGovernment said:
Right. What I wonder now is at what point have we become a copy? Is it a planck length of time is it only upon transfer to a wholly different entity?
Click to expand...
We don't become a copy, we are the sum of experience. Your consciousness doesn't change because dying cells are replaced, and if it does it simply becomes part of you.
 
Right but we have already asserted that a perfect facsimilie of your experience would not continue your stream of cousciousness even though to the copy that consciousness has been continous.

With the change in our quantum state is not the transmutation of our current state to that of a new one simply a difference in degree to having a copy made at once and our experience transferred into it.

If half the material in my brain was replaced with a brain that had the same physical qualities would this be a continuation of self. What about 999,999/1,000,000 what about 1/1,000,000
 
IHateGovernment said:
Right but we have already asserted that a perfect facsimilie of your experience would not continue your stream of cousciousness even though to the copy that consciousness has been continous.

With the change in our quantum state is not the transmutation of our current state to that of a new one simply a difference in degree to having a copy made at once and our experience transferred into it.

If half the material in my brain was replaced with a brain that had the same physical qualities would this be a continuation of self. What about 999,999/1,000,000 what about 1/1,000,000
Click to expand...
It would depend on the nueral pathways. If thought were uninterrupted you would still be you.
 
Depending on the portion lost most of us could lose 1/2 of our brains with no impact. Neos only have 2% functioning anyway. Neos can be replicated in a petri dish.
 
It would depend on the nueral pathways. If thought were uninterrupted you would still be you.

Is thought interrupted when we lose consciousness like a coma or even sleep?
 
IHateGovernment said:
It would depend on the nueral pathways. If thought were uninterrupted you would still be you.

Is thought interrupted when we lose consciousness like a coma or even sleep?
Click to expand...
Sleep is not a loss of consciousness, it is simply an altered state. A continuation of the current consciousness in a different state. It isn't like our brains are wiped clean each time we sleep to be rebooted in the morning.
 
Perhaps but I suppose we can never know if the continuation of our consciousness is real or imagined. We can't really know that this moment is the beginning of the universe and that past memories are just the result of the ordering of the atoms in the confines of our brains.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Perhaps but I suppose we can never know if the continuation of our consciousness is real or imagined. We can't really know that this moment is the beginning of the universe and that past memories are just the result of the ordering of the atoms in the confines of our brains.
Click to expand...
Hence the line in my sig. The first line of the Dhammapada.
 
Yeah I'm going to have to read that. I'm a bit light on my Buddhist writings which is a shame since I come from a long line of them.
 
I think the sense of self is a product of "The arrow of time", and the brain's "current" state of processing. The arrow of time dictates that there will be a "before, then after" direction to the processing, giving us the appearance of a continuation of "self".

If this be true, that doesn't mean there isn't a "self". It simply means that the self is a bit more complicated than we may have previously thought.
 
But we have no real connection with this copy. Our sense of self or identity does not continue on through this copy does it?

No, it would form its own sense of self from the moment it was copied, a sense of self built on the experiences (assuming you copy from an adult and copy exact neuro-pathways) it inherited from its source but developed from its own experiences seperately from the moment it was created.
 
I was beginning to wonder if I was myself since I change from instant to instant.
I guess I am never myself, by some definitions since constant change is occuring, I am always something new ? Or I am always myself but never the same....

'I' is only of the moment, then 'I' changes. 'I' is never constant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top