The philosophy of what is me

carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
The philosophy of what is me

 Hi I always whose interested in philosophy and I thought about it from my childhood I decided to find out what other philosophers thought about what actually makes someone themselves compared to someone other.

 

For instance if you are transported by a teleported ands a exact replica is created while the originals is annihilated is this copy you ? I say yes since I assumed cognitive continuity however I never knew the name of this branched of philosophy or the theories contained in it.

 

 

I even don’t know how to describe my view is it cognitivism since I assume that cognitive continuity makes me ?

 

 

I would appreciate some links to this topic and possibly to other views so I can have something to think about.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 How about using a more

 How about using a more realistic example?

 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 Well here is a game

 Well here is a game assessing if your view of self conforms to some established theory in philosophy http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.php

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
If they were to say, clone a

If they were to say, clone a replica of myself and annihilate me the original, the clone would not be me in the sense that I know. I would be gone but there might be a moron standing there that thinks and looks just like me. What was that Schwarzeneggar movie they kept a clone of thierself on hand or something, yea I don't think that will ever be possible. Well it would maybe but it would not be you.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote: How

100percentAtheist wrote:
How about using a more realistic example?

 

And what would you consider to be a realistic example? Seriously, this is your idea, I would like to see what you come up with.

 

In any case, while it may seem to be something unheard of, what about a couple of centuries from now? We really can't say with any certainty that some form of transporter will not be developed.

 

Here's the interesting thing for me: We also are making an assumption that the transporter works in a certain way, when in fact, the eventual device may work entirely differently. However, if we change the basic assumption to something else, then we end up asking rather different questions.

 

For example, what if the transporter process is not destructive to the individual? You walk in one end on earth, walk out the other end on earth and also walk out the other end on mars. Now there are two of you for any real meaning of the concept of identity.

 

This one gets even hairier as the two versions of you do not remain identical for very long. That version of you that remains on earth is going to nip off around the corner for a sandwich and a beer. Perhaps later on, you will go to the movies anf when you get home, you and your wife get laid.

 

However, the version of you that went to mars is now trying to survive in the hostile environment that obtains there. He will form different memories such as not being able to open his space suit when he needs to piss. When he does get back indoors, he will have a nice dinner of freeze dried pot roast and warm water. He can try to watch a movie streamed from earth but streaming video does not work out so well with the 300,000ms ping times that will obtain.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


AAR
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-08-11
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:For instance if

carx wrote:

For instance if you are transported by a teleported ands a exact replica is created while the originals is annihilated is this copy you ? I say yes since I assumed cognitive continuity however I never knew the name of this branched of philosophy or the theories contained in it.

 

the view i think is psychological reductionism. I'm sure a couple of branches take the theory into account but i would guess that ontology, which asks what does it mean to be or exist, is the most useful here.

in regards to your thought experiment, what if the original wasn't destroyed? then you would have two beings with the same psychological path, at least for an instant. But clearly they are not the same entity?!? there has to be some sort of physical continuity in conjunction with psychological continuity for that theory to hold.

 Btw i enjoyed the game you posted. do you know of any others like it for other areas of philosophy?


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:
How about using a more realistic example?

 

And what would you consider to be a realistic example? Seriously, this is your idea, I would like to see what you come up with.

 

In any case, while it may seem to be something unheard of, what about a couple of centuries from now? We really can't say with any certainty that some form of transporter will not be developed.

 

 

Well, first of all, in a couple of centuries a nice invisible pink unicorn may turn out to be a blue one. 

 

I do not really see how this is my idea, but I will try. Smiling

Say, you are in a late stage of Alzheimer's disease.  How do you know that your memories are yours and not the memories of someone who told you some stories?  If you are not sure about this, would you tend to consider your memories authentic or would you admit to yourself that you have lost your individuality? 

 

This seems to me closer to the OP's concern than to the OP's question, which is apparently about some hypothetical choice between dying or becoming a thinking robot.  Actually, if you think for a moment about that question, it is a ridiculous one because if you can RE-CREATE the body, you must be able to COPY the body WITHOUT destroying it.  Now, if it IS a problem of CHOICE, then I probably will give the organizers of the trip to Mars (which I cannot discuss, ha Smiling ) a simple choice that they can either GFthemS or I will die before the trip and they can go and FthemS, so I do have a choice now and THEY do NOT. Smiling  

 

 

 

 

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote:For instance if

carx wrote:

For instance if you are transported by a teleported ands a exact replica is created while the originals is annihilated is this copy you ? I say yes since I assumed cognitive continuity however I never knew the name of this branched of philosophy or the theories contained in it.

Why not look up Theseus' Ship and read about it.

I generally think that external referents stake out one's identity--that is something like my name, etc.

This isn't perfect, but I don't know that there is another solution that does not create have issues.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, you get no argument

Well, you get no argument from me on external names.

 

Answersingenesis

 

answersingenesi[mmon]s

 

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, you get no argument from me on external names.

 

Answersingenesis

 

answersingenesi[mmon]s

LOL I don't think anyone would confuse you for a creationist....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Define "me."

Define "me." Then, you can decide whether it's "me" or not.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Define

butterbattle wrote:

Define "me." Then, you can decide whether it's "me" or not.

Isn't "me" self-referencing? The only one that can call you, "me" is you. Smiling

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
This sounds like that old

This sounds like that old Philip K. Dick's story, The Unteleported Man.

But strictly speaking, it's not teleportation. It's about analysis and replication. If that would work, it would either allow us to replicate a plenty of food and common items from raw materials, or it would be too much expensive to transport anything anywhere and dispose of the originals. So yes, that's an unrealistic example.

I'm a supporter of occult philosophy. In my opinion, the person on the other end of "teleporter" would be probably braindead. Maybe alive, but in vegetative state.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Define "me." Then, you can decide whether it's "me" or not.

Isn't "me" self-referencing? The only one that can call you, "me" is you. Smiling

Lol.  

Let's refrain from using pronouns then. Instead, we can ask, is it the "same" human? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Lol.

butterbattle wrote:

Lol.  

Let's refrain from using pronouns then. Instead, we can ask, is it the "same" human? 

Same human in what regard?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Same

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Same human in what regard?

Well, carx said that it would be an "exact replica," so I suppose it would be the "same" human in the sense that it is physically identical.

However, it's also not the "same" human in the sense that it's, well, not the exact "same" human (dammit, I need a better vocabulary for this!). It wouldn't be the "same" consciousness. It would be another identical consciousness.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Same human in what regard?

Well, carx said that it would be an "exact replica," so I suppose it would be the "same" human in the sense that it is physically identical.

However, it's also not the "same" human in the sense that it's, well, not the exact "same" human (dammit, I need a better vocabulary for this!). It wouldn't be the "same" consciousness. It would be another identical consciousness.

Is that a meaningful distinction?  I mean, sure, the atoms are not the same atoms, but if their configuration is exactly the same then how would you define the new one as different from the old one at the theoretical moment of creation, before they diverge from differing inputs?  Isn't that the point of the thought experiment, to see what your reaction is to that concept?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Is that a

mellestad wrote:
Is that a meaningful distinction?

It is certainly a distinction that we can make. Is it a meaningful distinction? I'm not sure what that means.

mellestad wrote:
I mean, sure, the atoms are not the same atoms, but if their configuration is exactly the same then how would you define the new one as different from the old one at the theoretical moment of creation, before they diverge from differing inputs? 

Well, we defined the output human to be identical to the input human, right? So, there would be no way to distinguish between the two, by our own definition, except for the fact that we already know one is the input and one is the output. 

mellestad wrote:
Isn't that the point of the thought experiment, to see what your reaction is to that concept?

I'm not sure how to react. Is this just a convenient form of transportation? Did we "kill" "someone?" Should it be "murder?"

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Same human in what regard?

Well, carx said that it would be an "exact replica," so I suppose it would be the "same" human in the sense that it is physically identical.

However, it's also not the "same" human in the sense that it's, well, not the exact "same" human (dammit, I need a better vocabulary for this!). It wouldn't be the "same" consciousness. It would be another identical consciousness.

This is a tough gambit in any solution...

The same type of problem exists with software too...the program (in this case, Mozilla Firefox) is stored on my computer's HDD, yet another computer I'm looking at now has the identical program running on different hardware. Now, is it the same program or a different program.

Now, with consciousness, I dunno. If the consciousness is the same--that is composing of  the same behaviors, emotions, memories, etc. -- it I think it would be the same (as in identical) consciousness. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but the movie Blade Runner plays with this idea. Existentialism, which is one of the ideas the movie plays with, provides an out in that an individual defines himself to some degree. This is almost a self-described external referent such that one says, "X is this, and I am X."

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Is that a

mellestad wrote:

Is that a meaningful distinction?  I mean, sure, the atoms are not the same atoms, but if their configuration is exactly the same then how would you define the new one as different from the old one at the theoretical moment of creation, before they diverge from differing inputs?  Isn't that the point of the thought experiment, to see what your reaction is to that concept?

Tough...is it the particular atoms that defines one, or the relationship of atoms (that is configuration) to one another that defines one? I tend to think the latter, because if we go to the next level down--the quantum level--uncertainty becomes of issue. This forces one to use probabilities to describe particular particles which effects that which is contingent upon these particles, namely atoms.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:  

butterbattle wrote:

 

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Same human in what regard?

 

Well, carx said that it would be an "exact replica," so I suppose it would be the "same" human in the sense that it is physically identical.

 

However, it's also not the "same" human in the sense that it's, well, not the exact "same" human (dammit, I need a better vocabulary for this!). It wouldn't be the "same" consciousness. It would be another identical consciousness.

 

OK, for that, I would restate part of what I wrote in post #4.

 

Instead of a teleporter to Mars, we have a duplicating machine that is fully contained in one building.

 

You walk in one end and two of you walk out the other end. For the question of identity, postulating a drooling moron is disallowed. Both of you have the identical memory of marrying your wife. Who is she married to?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, for that, I would restate part of what I wrote in post #4.

Instead of a teleporter to Mars, we have a duplicating machine that is fully contained in one building.

You walk in one end and two of you walk out the other end. For the question of identity, postulating a drooling moron is disallowed. Both of you have the identical memory of marrying your wife. Who is she married to?

Lmao.

Well, there is no marriage law that deals with the situation, so I don't think we can really answer the question.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
has been done before

For teleportation, most sci-fi assumes you will be exactly the same at the other end.  Unless, of course, you get a fly on the teleporter at the same time you are on it.  (See Vincent Price in The Fly if you haven't already.)  If I remember correctly, The Physics of Star Trek says no way as it takes too much energy though they don't address personality.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282793106&sr=1-1

The idea behind teleportation is that it isn't a copy of you - it really truly is you.  The original is not destroyed as it is the original that has been moved almost instantaneously.  And we know it is the original "you" as Capt James T. Kirk was always the exact same ass after teleporting as he was before.

 

A few posters have mentioned a similar problem with cloning.

CJ Cherryh - Cyteen.  Raising a clone to replace someone.

http://www.amazon.com/Cyteen-C-J-Cherryh/dp/0446671274/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Lois MacMaster Bujold - Miles Errant.  Rescuing cloned children whose bodies are to be used by their progenitors, thereby destroying the child's mind.

http://www.amazon.com/Miles-Errant-Vorkosigan-Adventures/dp/0743435583/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282792557&sr=1-3

A couple of options - reproduce the nurturing environment as closely as possible hoping for the same personality development.  This is really risky I would think.  Too easy to miss some important itty bitty detail.

Or, have some sort of personality storage device, remove the child's personality and substitute the adult's.  Be sure to brainwash the child into compliance.  This is really nasty.

 

I just read the book or watch the movie and go with the flow.  Some sci-fi clichés are best if not examined too closely.

 

edit:  I forgot.  AnswerinGeneSimmons - Sherri S. Tepper - The Margarets.  http://www.amazon.com/Margarets-Sheri-S-Tepper/dp/0061170690/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282793761&sr=1-2

One original person, 6 splits in reality so each one has the memories up until they were spit off from the original.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:For teleportation,

cj wrote:

For teleportation, most sci-fi assumes you will be exactly the same at the other end.  Unless, of course, you get a fly on the teleporter at the same time you are on it.  (See Vincent Price in The Fly if you haven't already.)  If I remember correctly, The Physics of Star Trek says no way as it takes too much energy though they don't address personality.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282793106&sr=1-1

The idea behind teleportation is that it isn't a copy of you - it really truly is you.  The original is not destroyed as it is the original that has been moved almost instantaneously.  And we know it is the original "you" as Capt James T. Kirk was always the exact same ass after teleporting as he was before.

 

A few posters have mentioned a similar problem with cloning.

CJ Cherryh - Cyteen.  Raising a clone to replace someone.

http://www.amazon.com/Cyteen-C-J-Cherryh/dp/0446671274/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Lois MacMaster Bujold - Miles Errant.  Rescuing cloned children whose bodies are to be used by their progenitors, thereby destroying the child's mind.

http://www.amazon.com/Miles-Errant-Vorkosigan-Adventures/dp/0743435583/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282792557&sr=1-3

A couple of options - reproduce the nurturing environment as closely as possible hoping for the same personality development.  This is really risky I would think.  Too easy to miss some important itty bitty detail.

Or, have some sort of personality storage device, remove the child's personality and substitute the adult's.  Be sure to brainwash the child into compliance.  This is really nasty.

 

I just read the book or watch the movie and go with the flow.  Some sci-fi clichés are best if not examined too closely.

 

edit:  I forgot.  AnswerinGeneSimmons - Sherri S. Tepper - The Margarets.  http://www.amazon.com/Margarets-Sheri-S-Tepper/dp/0061170690/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282793761&sr=1-2

One original person, 6 splits in reality so each one has the memories up until they were spit off from the original.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:mellestad

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Is that a meaningful distinction?  I mean, sure, the atoms are not the same atoms, but if their configuration is exactly the same then how would you define the new one as different from the old one at the theoretical moment of creation, before they diverge from differing inputs?  Isn't that the point of the thought experiment, to see what your reaction is to that concept?

Tough...is it the particular atoms that defines one, or the relationship of atoms (that is configuration) to one another that defines one? I tend to think the latter, because if we go to the next level down--the quantum level--uncertainty becomes of issue. This forces one to use probabilities to describe particular particles which effects that which is contingent upon these particles, namely atoms.

I don't know if this makes any sense, but maybe we aren't the particular atoms that make up our bodies, or the configuration of those atoms.  Maybe we are the process those atoms undergo.  An analogy might be that we are not the water but the wave.      When a wave moves through water the wave at any given point is made up of specific atoms which have a specific configuration, but the wave itself is not a specific group of atoms or configuration of those atoms.  The wave is the process the water undergoes given a specific starting configuration and a set of rules(i.e. the laws of physics). 

Given this analogy I would say that an identical copy of us would not be us anymore then an identical wave would be the same wave.   


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Given this

RatDog wrote:
Given this analogy I would say that an identical copy of us would not be us anymore then an identical wave would be the same wave.   

Change over time does effect the identity of something, which is why I was thinking in terms of probabilities. Atoms are constantly in flux. I'm constantly changing because of this. Processes are still contingent upon the particular atoms though.

At the end of the day, like I said earlier, I dunno that there's a perfect solution. But I do like the philosophical navel gazing. Smiling

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:RatDog

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

RatDog wrote:
Given this analogy I would say that an identical copy of us would not be us anymore then an identical wave would be the same wave.   

Change over time does effect the identity of something, which is why I was thinking in terms of probabilities. Atoms are constantly in flux. I'm constantly changing because of this. Processes are still contingent upon the particular atoms though.

At the end of the day, like I said earlier, I dunno that there's a perfect solution. But I do like the philosophical navel gazing. Smiling

 

Continuing with the idea that 'self' is a process I guess I would suggest that you are not constantly changing, but instead you are the change.   You are of course still contingent upon the atoms that make up your body just as the existence of a wave going through water is contingent on the water, but that doesn't mean the wave is the water or that you are the atoms that make up your body.

 

I don't really know if there is a perfect answer about the nature of self, but I agree it is fun to think about it.  

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:edit: I forgot.

cj wrote:
edit: I forgot. AnswerinGeneSimmons - Sherri S. Tepper - The Margarets. http://www.amazon.com/Margarets-Sheri-S-Tepper/dp/0061170690/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282793761&sr=1-2

 

One original person, 6 splits in reality so each one has the memories up until they were spit off from the original.

 

Thanks cj. Back at you:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0802767486/ref=tmm_hrd_new_olp_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1282832606&sr=1-1&condition=new

 

Mind Transfer by Janet Asimov (Isaac's second wife). Non-destructive recording of a human brain that can be copied (once only) into a positronic brain. Since the process is non-destructive, many recordings of one person may me made over time.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Saga-Cuckoo-Farthest-Star-Around/dp/B003A9TSME/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282831378&sr=1-4

 

The Saga of Cuckoo (two volumes) by Fred Pohl and Jack Williamson.

 

Interstellar travel via non-destructive quantum copying. The process is fairly expensive so not too common. Also, the galaxy is a big enough place that you don't often meet another version of yourself, although it certainly does happen.

 

In one interesting scene, a guy contemplating acts of terrorism volunteers for dozens of colonizing missions on the grounds that no matter what happens to his original, he can always return to spread more of his nonsense.

 

Also, two points for correction:

 

cj wrote:
(See Vincent Price in The Fly if you haven't already.)

 

That was David Hedison. Vincent Price played his older brother.

 

cj wrote:
The idea behind teleportation is that it isn't a copy of you - it really truly is you. The original is not destroyed as it is the original that has been moved almost instantaneously. And we know it is the original "you" as Capt James T. Kirk was always the exact same ass after teleporting as he was before.

 

Except for when not being the same makes an interesting plot device. See episode 1x04 “The Enemy Within” feature evil Kirk/pussy Kirk.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Also, two points for correction:

 

Thanks for the book suggestions.  And give an old lady a break - it's been years since I watched either The Fly or the original Star Trek.  I remember the Jekyll/Hyde episode now you mention it. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: Why not

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Why not look up Theseus' Ship and read about it.

I generally think that external referents stake out one's identity--that is something like my name, etc.

This isn't perfect, but I don't know that there is another solution that does not create have issues.

 

 

Thanks you  , I wondered the same from early childhood however this involved a robot or a dole.

 

robj101 wrote:

If they were to say, clone a replica of myself and annihilate me the original, the clone would not be me in the sense that I know. I would be gone but there might be a moron standing there that thinks and looks just like me. What was that Schwarzeneggar movie they kept a clone of thierself on hand or something, yea I don't think that will ever be possible. Well it would maybe but it would not be you.

 

 

That is “the 6 day”  there is a more interesting movie named “the prestige” especially the ending

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKan75x7GI

 

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XHKan75x7GI?fs=1&amp;hl=pl_PL"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XHKan75x7GI?fs=1&amp;hl=pl_PL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Here is a interesting question what if someone would have cloned you in your sleap in this teleported way ? What if he would imprisoned the original you and lave the clone behinde ? Howe would you know that this haze not harpooned ? What would be if the original would show up ? What would that make you ?

 

AAR wrote:

the view i think is psychological reductionism. I'm sure a couple of branches take the theory into account but i would guess that ontology, which asks what does it mean to be or exist, is the most useful here.

in regards to your thought experiment, what if the original wasn't destroyed? then you would have two beings with the same psychological path, at least for an instant. But clearly they are not the same entity?!? there has to be some sort of physical continuity in conjunction with psychological continuity for that theory to hold.

 Btw i enjoyed the game you posted. do you know of any others like it for other areas of philosophy?

Thank you for the answer.

I would be interested in the names of other views like about biological continuity being the most important one or others.

 

There are more games in the game section one involves your morality and another one for esthetics .

 

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games

 

I enjoyed the games however I don’t know more sources of similar ones.

  

Well back to your question my answer is quite unique since I believe if I and a copy would be created he and I would be representations of the same thing similar to copies of a CD. It is really irrelevant who is the original and who the copies both are representations of the same thing like it is really irrelevant if you give your friend a CD and he gives you a copy instead back assuming that the CD is of the same quality and identical to the given there is no real distinction between a original and a copy they both represent the same thing.

 The question with of them is me is meaningless they are both representations of me since either of them can die and I will still live.

 

Things get tricky if they start diverging on the other hand we all die and are replaced with a exact copy of our selves every second with a little change we name this observing , thinking or learning since our mental states have changed and we can not be assumed to be the same entity even if we do nothing at witch point we name this a actual death of the original is ultimately arbitrary.

  

 BTW: Ultimately this is your brain on philosophy kids and philosophy is addictive. 

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I enjoyed the ending from

I enjoyed the ending from The Prestige, it was a nice revelatory moment.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.