31 replies to this topic

[Nihilated]

Imagine that your wife (or husband) was killed in a future accident. But she had preserved her DNA/memories into a database the day before she died. So you go to the bio-bank and ask them to make a perfect replica with the materials she left behind. In this case, her biological self should be virtually the same as well as her lifetime experiences.

In your view, is she the same person?

[Cyberbrain]

That's the argument that Bernard William also makes in Problems of the Self.

It's also the argument of mind uploading and downloading. You can find dozens of threads of this throughout imminst.

[FunkOdyssey]

IMHO, No. You've just made a clone of your wife that will behave the same way she used to, but it is not the same person. Similarly, a clone of any animal shares most or all characteristics with the original but for obvious reasons cannot be the original (they are separate entities).

The same argument applies to mind uploading/downloading as Kostas said.

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 10 June 2008 - 06:46 PM.

[forever freedom]

Imagine that your wife (or husband) was killed in a future accident. But she had preserved her DNA/memories into a database the day before she died. So you go to the bio-bank and ask them to make a perfect replica with the materials she left behind. In this case, her biological self should be virtually the same as well as her lifetime experiences.

In your view, is she the same person?

Well in this particular case whether she's the same person or not doesn't matter since she will look and "be" the same from my perspective.


As if objectively if she will be the same, i don't think do. I think that my former wife's consciousness will be gone, and i will have a perfect new replica in front of me.


I bet you got the idea of this topic by watching "Solaris"? If you didn't, the movie is about this exact same issue.

[VictorBjoerk]

The copy wouldn't be here because she had experiences the day she died which the clone won't have

[Heliotrope]

I'm guessing it could be 50-50. I hope it's the same person, or what's the use if someone else lives my life as exactl 100% copy of me

[solbanger]

IMHO, No. You've just made a clone of your wife that will behave the same way she used to, but it is not the same person. Similarly, a clone of any animal shares most or all characteristics with the original but for obvious reasons cannot be the original (they are separate entities).

The same argument applies to mind uploading/downloading as Kostas said.

Right, and to add to the hypothetical question, ask yourself what if you didn't kill your wife and merely made a clone of her while she was alive? Of course the clone would be a separate entity with similar mannerisms.

At least as far as we know. The question remains about quantum entanglement and its relationship between the mind, memory and consciousness. The chance may exist that creating a perfect replica of a person could lead to a fantastic synchronism between the original and the clones such as telepathy, intuition and shared dreams. Who knows what happens when brains are perfectly synchronised? Perhaps the thoughts amplify and these abilities become pronounced?

[forever freedom]

IMHO, No. You've just made a clone of your wife that will behave the same way she used to, but it is not the same person. Similarly, a clone of any animal shares most or all characteristics with the original but for obvious reasons cannot be the original (they are separate entities).

The same argument applies to mind uploading/downloading as Kostas said.

Right, and to add to the hypothetical question, ask yourself what if you didn't kill your wife and merely made a clone of her while she was alive? Of course the clone would be a separate entity with similar mannerisms.

At least as far as we know. The question remains about quantum entanglement and its relationship between the mind, memory and consciousness. The chance may exist that creating a perfect replica of a person could lead to a fantastic synchronism between the original and the clones such as telepathy, intuition and shared dreams. Who knows what happens when brains are perfectly synchronised? Perhaps the thoughts amplify and these abilities become pronounced?

Yes amazingly that could happen when you think about it. It's a highly unlikely possibility but it can't be eliminated since we still know so little...

Edited by sam988, 10 June 2008 - 08:46 PM.

[Shannon Vyff]

If the memories are there, then it would be the same person IMO. Having the same DNA, the same body--and the same memories would to me be like the person has come back to life, just missing the few days missed from the last time they uploaded/scanned/saved their memories. But, if DNA was used to make the same body and a composite of 'normal human memories' or your own memories and preferences were used to program their brain, I'd feel it was not the same person, most likely . I'd think you really need your childhood memories, and life experience memories to really be 'you'--I place a higher importance on this than having a physical body, I'm one that would not mind being uploaded. I would prefer an android body than my faulty human body though, I'd feel I was me, or a person I loved was 'them-self' if all their memories were in that android body. Now advanced intelligence, might make me quite different within minutes, I'd like to have the fractured, imperfect human memories that were with me at the time of the upload, or transfer.

[cyborgdreamer]

I think they would be the same person because a person's memories and brain configuration are the only things that connect one's consciousness from one moment to the next. Of course, we don't really know so I'd rather not take the risk.

[Ben Simon]

If they got it absolutely right they'd be the same person, at least for all intents and purposes.

Every one of us is no more than a copy of our former selves. The parts are all new... the memories aren't pieces of the past, they're physical events happening right now... but you're you, right? The same principle applies - it's the information that's important, not the wrapping.

Of course, perhaps phrasing the question this way presents an easy way out. What might be more interesting to ask is what happens if you're NOT identical? If you're only similar? If you have the same memories... but a different appearance or way of thinking? That's when it gets weird. Experiments of this nature already occur everytime someone alters their mind chemically through things like alcohol. Are you 'you' when the information changes? ...Yes and no?

Edited by ben, 11 June 2008 - 07:11 AM.

[mentatpsi]

where would that stream of consciousness go once it's broken from the original host in death? How would it transfer to the next body? Even more crucial, is exact replication even possible?

This borders on mysticism (blinks), i thought that was a no no, what's going on?

[Ben Simon]

Where would it go?

It would cease. It wouldn't go anywhere.

But if you were to copy someone's brain perfectly and make an elaborate computer simulation of it, perhaps that persons consciousness could be perfectly replicated.

It's like copying any kind of code. I can listen to any recorded song I like on my computer, and I don't need the master copy to do it.

[Ghostrider]

Where would it go?

It would cease. It wouldn't go anywhere.

But if you were to copy someone's brain perfectly and make an elaborate computer simulation of it, perhaps that persons consciousness could be perfectly replicated.

It's like copying any kind of code. I can listen to any recorded song I like on my computer, and I don't need the master copy to do it.

This same question was asked about 3 months ago. I posted a response somewhere on this forum, but I can't find it. No, they would not be the same person.

[Nihilated]

I know that it's obvious that the person isn't the same, but would you be willing to live with your replicated wife?
Is she 'real' enough to replace the one that died yesterday?

[mentatpsi]

I know that it's obvious that the person isn't the same, but would you be willing to live with your replicated wife?
Is she 'real' enough to replace the one that died yesterday?

now there's an interesting question. Knowing that the face of the husband/wife would most likely bring back emotions of love which are due to connections within the temporal lobe and the limbic system (read an interesting neurological take on Capgras' syndrome earlier today), you would imagine that this person would also love you, in the same manner as the one previous. So this person who might not exactly be your true beloved, still shares similar feelings...

it seems unhealthy, but who am i to judge.

I can see this being an episode on the twilight zone or outer limits... quite an interesting question .

Edited by mysticpsi, 11 June 2008 - 09:00 PM.

[Ben Simon]

I know that it's obvious that the person isn't the same, but would you be willing to live with your replicated wife?
Is she 'real' enough to replace the one that died yesterday?

now there's an interesting question. Knowing that the face of the husband/wife would most likely bring back emotions of love which are due to connections within the temporal lobe and the limbic system (read an interesting neurological take on Capgras' syndrome earlier today), you would imagine that this person would also love you, in the same manner as the one previous. So this person who might not exactly be your true beloved, still shares similar feelings...

it seems unhealthy, but who am i to judge.

I can see this being an episode on the twilight zone or outer limits... quite an interesting question .

I think it's perfectly acceptable. Even if it's not the same person in the strictest sense - it's an identical person. The information is exactly alike... even if it's composed of different atoms and particles and neurons.

[brokenportal]

You all seem to think that the replicated wife wouldnt be the same. Why? She woudlnt have any of the memories that came after the time her last hard drive was saved, but she would still be the same up till that point she was saved. She would still have the same loving memories and all that came from that time previous. I thinka thing like that would surely be good and beneficial.

[thughes]

It seems to me this can be solved by experiment.

I like Kurzweil's opinion on why an exact replica is not the same: Lets say an exact replica has been made without killing the original person. Now, go up to the original person and tell them you are going to terminate them because an exact replica has been made so their redundant body is no longer needed. How do you think they would react?

You can shorten the length of time arbitrarily, right up until you kill the original at the exact moment after you make the copy. The problem isn't going to suddenly change.

Here's the experiment (doable only after we have the technology). Make an exact replica. See if there is any version of a shared consciousness between the 2 bodies. If not, they are not the same consciousness.

If we are spacial/temporal patterns the break in spacial continuity may matter...

- Tracy

[Nihilated]

I bet you got the idea of this topic by watching "Solaris"? If you didn't, the movie is about this exact same issue.

No, I was daydreaming during science lol.

[mentatpsi]

You all seem to think that the replicated wife wouldnt be the same. Why? She woudlnt have any of the memories that came after the time her last hard drive was saved, but she would still be the same up till that point she was saved. She would still have the same loving memories and all that came from that time previous. I thinka thing like that would surely be good and beneficial.

She'd be a ghost of the past, but a completely new entity. What of the unified stream of consciousness that unites one moment to the next? This new individual merely carries the data of the past. There is no mechanism to transfer this unified stream, so unless thughes' experiment would prove some interesting find, i'm going to have to say they'll be different.

If we are spacial/temporal patterns the break in spacial continuity may matter...

care to elaborate? sounds interesting

Edited by mysticpsi, 12 June 2008 - 02:58 AM.

[cyborgdreamer]

Here's the experiment (doable only after we have the technology). Make an exact replica. See if there is any version of a shared consciousness between the 2 bodies. If not, they are not the same consciousness.

You have to think about consciousness differently to understand what we're saying. You are assuming that we have a unified consciousness that continues over our lives and is oblitherated after we die. This could be the case but we don't have the evidence to back up this hypothesis. Personally, I think it's more likely that the continuity of consciousness is an illusion. Instead, the self could be a set of disjoint moments of consciousness connected only by the common memories and personality information in our brains. So if you replicate the brain, you wouldn't need to worry about whether it has the same consciousness because it is meaningless to ever say that consciousness is the same from one moment to the next.

[Nihilated]

It seems to me this can be solved by experiment.

I like Kurzweil's opinion on why an exact replica is not the same: Lets say an exact replica has been made without killing the original person. Now, go up to the original person and tell them you are going to terminate them because an exact replica has been made so their redundant body is no longer needed. How do you think they would react?

You can shorten the length of time arbitrarily, right up until you kill the original at the exact moment after you make the copy. The problem isn't going to suddenly change.

Here's the experiment (doable only after we have the technology). Make an exact replica. See if there is any version of a shared consciousness between the 2 bodies. If not, they are not the same consciousness.

If we are spacial/temporal patterns the break in spacial continuity may matter...

- Tracy

That wasn't the original question. Of course we all had an understanding of this line of reasoning that you've mentioned. But what I'm asking is that are you able to live with this exact replica, since the replica will think that it's real?

It's the replica's true conviction that it's real that's in question here. You can't just shun your replicated wife once she's been made.

Edited by Nihilated, 12 June 2008 - 03:42 AM.

[Ben Simon]

Here's the experiment (doable only after we have the technology). Make an exact replica. See if there is any version of a shared consciousness between the 2 bodies. If not, they are not the same consciousness.

You have to think about consciousness differently to understand what we're saying. You are assuming that we have a unified consciousness that continues over our lives and is oblitherated after we die. This could be the case but we don't have the evidence to back up this hypothesis. Personally, I think it's more likely that the continuity of consciousness is an illusion. Instead, the self could be a set of disjoint moments of consciousness connected only by the common memories and personality information in our brains. So if you replicate the brain, you wouldn't need to worry about whether it has the same consciousness because it is meaningless to ever say that consciousness is the same from one moment to the next.

Bingo.

[thughes]

That wasn't the original question. Of course we all had an understanding of this line of reasoning that you've mentioned. But what I'm asking is that are you able to live with this exact replica, since the replica will think that it's real?

Sure, no problem. In fact I'd be happy to have such a replica of myself made if I die, so the people I leave behind won't be lonely.

me: If we are spacial/temporal patterns the break in spacial continuity may matter...

care to elaborate? sounds interesting

Nothing profound. Just defining "the same pattern" as one that is not spacially/temporally disjoint, to get around the whole "what if I replace it bit by bit, is it the same?" argument. Its the same, under this definition, if its the same evolving pattern in a non-disjoint space/time location. If you copy it and destroy the original, its a copy: the space/time continuity of the evolving pattern has been broken. Ie. the space/time address is a relevant part of the pattern. Even if 2 snowflakes are the same in all aspects except their location, they are still different individual snowflakes.

You have to think about consciousness differently to understand what we're saying. You are assuming that we have a unified consciousness that continues over our lives and is oblitherated after we die. This could be the case but we don't have the evidence to back up this hypothesis. Personally, I think it's more likely that the continuity of consciousness is an illusion. Instead, the self could be a set of disjoint moments of consciousness connected only by the common memories and personality information in our brains. So if you replicate the brain, you wouldn't need to worry about whether it has the same consciousness because it is meaningless to ever say that consciousness is the same from one moment to the next.

Interesting. I'll have to think about that one some.

- Tracy

[mentatpsi]

[...]
Nothing profound. Just defining "the same pattern" as one that is not spacially/temporally disjoint, to get around the whole "what if I replace it bit by bit, is it the same?" argument. Its the same, under this definition, if its the same evolving pattern in a non-disjoint space/time location. If you copy it and destroy the original, its a copy: the space/time continuity of the evolving pattern has been broken. Ie. the space/time address is a relevant part of the pattern. Even if 2 snowflakes are the same in all aspects except their location, they are still different individual snowflakes.
[...]
- Tracy

Ahh, that's what i thought you meant, it was poetically put... poetics always seem to enhance the mystery. I completely agree.

To quickly summarize my own perspective: the real possibility of synchronous thoughts should only occur given the brains influence of thought, and an exact similarity in both brains. Even when people say the same thing together, it doesn't mean all the aspects of their thoughts were similar. The aspect of being in two different places means they would be influenced differently by various forces, and as such, their development would take different turns. Eventually, some similarities of the brains will be lost simply because of the influences, these changes would give rise to different thoughts. I also have a feeling that exact replication is impossible simply because development is influenced by many things, there will be differences that occur during the replication process due to this.

Either or, i really don't understand consciousness all that well, but if it's completely the result of patterns of neural activity in the brain then any changes to these patterns would illicit a different person. As such, the only thing that we share throughout moments is our singular consciousness and the waking memories of "past lives".

Though, cyborgdreamer's take on singular consciousness is interesting . Do you really think our connectivity from one moment to the next is an illusion, or just offering it as a possibility?

Edit: fixed typos

Edited by mysticpsi, 13 June 2008 - 08:00 AM.

[cyborgdreamer]

Though, cyborgdreamer's take on singular consciousness is interesting . Do you really think our connectivity from one moment to the next is an illusion, or just offering it as a possibility?

I think it probably is an illusion, but given how little we know about consciousness, I wouldn't step into a teleporter anytime soon.

[mentatpsi]

Though, cyborgdreamer's take on singular consciousness is interesting . Do you really think our connectivity from one moment to the next is an illusion, or just offering it as a possibility?

I think it probably is an illusion, but given how little we know about consciousness, I wouldn't step into a teleporter anytime soon.

Your idea grant many possibilities into my imagination .

For the most part, the mind does sometimes connect possibly random events into a linear fashion (ex. superstition), it is possible that the singular experience of life is but an illusion, but ohh how intricate an illusion it would have to be... I did have a conversation once how our pursuit of meaning in life is in a sense a created line (existentialism) that makes us lose focus of bits of information outside that line, it may even help with memory considering decay takes longer with meaning than with accuracy of facts. However, what you speak of would entail a complete breakdown of consciousness. How is it you came to this philosophy, if i may ask? Quite interesting .

Edited by mysticpsi, 13 June 2008 - 08:01 AM.

[Forever21]

Imagine that your wife (or husband) was killed in a future accident. But she had preserved her DNA/memories into a database the day before she died. So you go to the bio-bank and ask them to make a perfect replica with the materials she left behind. In this case, her biological self should be virtually the same as well as her lifetime experiences.

In your view, is she the same person?

Yes.

[tous]

Lil off topic, but I like to rant. Short version at the bottom if your feeling lazy

If you crash a car into a ditch, and go buy the same model from the dealership would it be the same car? Same model sure, but its not the same one. Even if the dealership could mould the seat to your but, put the same number of miles on the odometer it wouldn't be the same car. I mean it looks the same, would handle the same(might need to break it in, drive it down the same roads, aka transfer in those memories) but it would seem the the same in most respects. But it's still not that same car. You didn't sleep with your wife for the first time in it. It isn't the same car that has safely gotten your children to school every day for years. Its similar, its a copy even, but it is not the same car. One ends and the other begins. What was can never be again.

This doesn't mean that getting a new car is a bad idea though. People still need to get around. People need to go out with their wives. People still need to pick up there kids. People need to keep on living. These are practical needs that need to be foefilled. In the same way a person may need someone in the lives to continue having a reason to keep on living. Humans by nature are very dictated by their emotions, their loves, their fears, their etc. When a mother looses her child, we can not bring that child back. At the preset time we do not have any way to do that. What we can do is ease that mothers pain by giving her a copy. There is nothing wrong or new about this concept. How many of times have you seen/heard of a pet dieing only to get a new pet a few days later? Or if a parent accidently breaks a a child's favorite toy they buy them a new one.


Short Version: "No"

Edited by tous, 21 July 2008 - 04:54 AM.