104 replies to this topic

[gashinshotan]

Entropy can only increase as time passes, so it's true that there can never be a 100% identical copy. But we don't need a 100% identical copy to continue our consciousness. My original argument was that consciousness is a mechanism derived directly from the brain, much in the same way artificial intelligence is derived from computers. It is a processes. A continuing mechanistic process of electrical signals and chemical reactions. Therefore, all we really need to do is to continue this unique mechanistic process (it varies person per person - this is what gives us our unique personalities ... I will explain below) in order to maintain consciousness. Our brains are a very dynamic system, and they only get more complex as time passes. We wouldn't need to duplicate our brain atom-per-atom in order to insure we have maintained the original consciousness because there is no such thing as an original consciousness. Our consciousness is a process who's algorithm is partly defined by our subjective experiences and partly defined by our genes. Consciousness doesn't carry with it any identity unless if it is subjected to experiences and memories. Therefore, with the exact science and technology it would be theoretically possible to upload your mind.


No, it is not made up of specific atoms (I should have been more specific). Consciousness, as I have explained above, is a process.

I'm pretty sure both of those are possible


Cells regenerate and have a life cycle indeed, but they belong to a much larger system, your body, which remains active thanks to its cell's lifecycle but has its OWN lifecycle.


I have to disagree. Our body is a system, true, but our consciousness is a process which is derived from this system. We are what we eat because our physical bodies maintain the continuation of this process. lol ... I should have been more clearer in my previous post.

Of course this is all coming strictly from my materialistic perspective. I have to admit, I'm a reductionist, all complex systems can be completely understood in terms of simpler constituents (much like in chaos theory, where something as small as the flap of a butterflies wings can generate something as complex as a hurricane).

share your views with a biologist - they'll die of laughter.

[Cyberbrain]

share your views with a biologist - they'll die of laughter.

How so?

[patryn]

Hello all.

I too believe that this is all really very simple once we get our minds around it, I also believe that both sides of this argument are right, depending on a certain point of view.

From a universal point of view, an original and a copy are two different entities. As MysticPSI said "The moment the two exist together, they diverge."
This is because we (us, me, you, identity, soul, conciousness, the process of self, whatever you want to call it) is a collection of our experiences. The moment two (or more) "identical processes of self" co-exist at the same time, in different space, they become seperate entities.

From each entities point of view, they are both themselves. Both believe they are their own TRUE self.

Ok, so now the hurdle. Which one is really the TRUE self, surely there cannot be two? Which one has the original "soul"?
The answer is: Neither. They are both new, from the moment that they co-exist. It is also true that they are and were the same person (the same self/conciousness/soul/entity/etc) right up until the time that their identical processes of "self" started to co-exist.

It has already been shown by many in this thread that this explanation makes complete sense.
Naturally, human beings (and probably every self aware creature) is under an illusion that their self awareness (their "self/soul/conciousness/whatever") is the same one it was since the day they were born. This isn't true, every breathing moment we change our "self", "our process of self" is in a constant state of flux. This is what we call living. The built in natural illusion was evolutinarily necessary to allow us to get this far. Can you imagine if monkeys or pre-historic man realised that he was just a bunch of self aware information? (Actually this probably happened and as a concenquence religion was born, to allow our ancestors to "just get on with living/surviving/advancing" without spending too much effort on unanswerable questions.)

The sooner you realise that your "soul" (all the little bits of information that make you - you) is constantly changing, and that that's all you really are. Just a collection of experiences with self awareness, it'll be easier to grasp the idea that the question of "Who is the orginal" is moot. No one is their original self. Ever. You're not the same person (soul/process of self/conciousness/whatever) you were 2 seconds ago.
If you are "living/experiencing/conscious/being self aware" how can you possibly be the same self you were yesturday? You have changed. The information has changed.

You are a process. Housed in a human body. If it were possible to duplicate that process in its complete entirety, down to the tiniest quantum details and house it in another identical human body... and "start it up"... We would have two really similar people, who were one and the same person at one time, but now neither of them are that same person. As time progressed each entity would differ more and more from the other.

The rules are the same with any number of copies, or even if no copies are ever made. You are not the same person you were yesturday. Just like if 100 copies of you were made, and you were destroyed. Each one of your 100 copies would be "you" right up to the point of copy. Your "self" would survive, much as it does now, from moment to moment.

Way back when, it helped me to think of this in computer game terms. Have you ever played a game and "Saved" your game so that at a later point, if your character died, you could just go back to the "Saved" point in the game? Well, it's pretty much the same concept. The character is the 'same' character right up until the point of 'save'. But from the "Save" point and onwards, the character is different, because you play the game differently each time, in order to get to the next level.
The only difference with that and making identical duplicates of human beings is that only one instance of the game character exists at any one time, where as it would be possible to have many instances of duplicate humans running around. (And they would all be seperate entities, with a lot of things in common.)


Personally I think that this method is an excellent way to achieve Immortality, or at least get closer to it. I understand that many people have different ideas of what a "soul" or a "self" is, and because of this it is difficult and in some cases terrifying to think in the terms described above. But, unfortunately, we have to be willing to shake the foundations of our own personal realities if we want to make any headway. The Earth used to be flat once. In the same way, I think that inorder to advance and eventually become immortal, we may have to throw away some of our assumed ideas about what makes us - us.


Thanks for this thread. It was an interesting read :-)
By the way I recommend you watch "The 6th Day" if you haven't yet. Anyone reading this thread will find it most interesting im sure.

~ G


PS: By the way here's an interesting thought experiment on the traditional idea of a soul. (Since the title of this thread suggests proof that souls exist)

There are now more humans living than at any other time in known history. At one time, I think we can all agree that there used to be much much less humans around then there are now. Now if we say that each human has a soul of his/her own, then it seems only logical to say that there used to be much less souls at one point in time then there are now. As far as I can tell, this means one of the following is true.

- Souls are created along with humans... so... shouldn't they also be destroyed along with humans? Hrm? [This suggests that a soul is just another way of saying "collection experiences with self awareness capability"]
- Souls exist somewhere else and one soul is picked up by every human (lifeform?) upon comming into existance, and this soul is returned to whence ever it came from upon the destruction of that human (or lifeform). [Religion anyone?]
- Souls are made up of a completely different material which is limited, so the more lifeforms there are the smaller each lifeforms 'soul' will be. (Like splitting a pizza between 2 people, vs splitting a pizza between 12). [An interesting idea]

Have fun.

[abolitionist]

The meme 'soul' is an attempt to say that there is something that cannot be quantified and reproduced potentially.

Why would anyone want to think this way?

It helps to rationalize the human condition, just like the god meme.

It's also tied in with the belief in free-will that is used to justify punishment - or more accurately to help us rationalize the use of punishment to get humans to conform to social norms.

The hindus used the soul meme to justify the caste system - saying that some had better souls than others leading to a higher or lower birth within the social stratus.

Edited by abolitionist, 23 March 2008 - 10:18 AM.

[Brainbox]

Let's say we can suppress brain to the level of no brainwaves and revive it after some time.
Imagine such experiment:
We turn someone's brain off and then create two identical copies of that brain by nanoassembler. Next the original brain is destroyed forever and the copies are turned on.

Lets make a premise that souls don't exist. If this was the case, the object from which you see the world would be determined by the structure of the brain or brain-like mechanism only. So you must go on living in the one of the copies after they are turned on, because they didn't experience any perceptions and didn't change while they were off. But it's obviously not likely that u could be in two places simultaneously and see things from 4 eyes. Thus this premise is contradictory and must be wrong.

The conclusion is that living beings contain something which can't be copied by our current or predicted to come technologies and we call this thing a soul.

I'd appreaciate your comments about inconsistencies or mistakes if you see any, especially by ocsrazor and other scientists.

Disregarding the fact that "soul" is a concept with many interpretations. Regarding my thoughts on it, this is not critical. So lets avoid that one.

You are copying the brain only.

I question the fact that a single organ can implement any complex concept like soul, consciousness or whatever. Seems very unlikely. How we behave or perceive our soul depends very much on our interaction with the world. And how we are raised, one single but major aspect of interaction. Our interaction with the world depends also on the "wiring" of and within other organs as well. Even one single nerve or even molecule within our fingertip contributes to all our complex human functions.

It's the entire network of body hardware that facilitate complex human functions. This entire network is unique for each individual.

Whether soul exists or not cannot be determined by this experiment. You would have to copy the entire body, including the fluids it contains and the state it is in (like electric charges). Up to the molecular level and even beyond that.

If you do that, the person will be spawned into two individuals, each living their respective lives exploring different pathways, that happen to originate, or better, split at a common point or state of existence. Even the memories of both copies will change in different ways since how we perceive our memories also depends on our current experiences. Give or take a few years, they will become entirely different personalities. What would that proof about the existence of a soul? I wouldn't know. If a soul does exist that is not based on functions that are provided by body network, and it would have an essential function in our existence, the two copies would not be alive. And in case they are dead, what would be the cause of that?

In the end, it will be the ability to copy a human at the level of detail that is required to recreate the entire networked system. It's a question of details, not a question of concepts. All the tiny details together determine the concepts represented by it. If the copies are dead, dysfunctional, have different personalities as compared to the original, what does that proof? That we cannot copy a soul? No, it proofs we cannot copy. In case we are successful and the two copies are identical to the original right after the copying, what does that proof? That we are able to copy a soul? No, it proofs we can copy.

Edit: Some afterthoughts. Apart from the issues above, we are not able to copy an individual in a way that it provides continuity regarding life-line or progress of life. The copy or copies, when activated, would be at a different time-space than the original one when copied or shut down. And they would both have different time-space environments compared to each other. Which would impose a discontinuity. They will be different personalities right from the start. Very small differences, but it's the principle that counts. How would the existence of a soul react on or deal with that?

Oops, I thought I did read all of the thread but apparently I didn't. Sorry for the (partly?) redundant and repeating blahblah.... I definitely must stop trying to be clever when I don't have the time for it

Edited by brainbox, 23 March 2008 - 01:50 PM.

[Brainbox]

And another afterthought. Take two identical twins. They evolved from one single molecular structure, the perfect copy so to say. Copy when the structures are still simple. They do have different souls I guess (in case you believe in the concept). But where did these souls originate? You might argue that in this phase of existence a soul does not yet exist. But in saying so, are you not confirming the fact a soul is developed like any other human function or concept?

[abolitionist]

the concept of soul - where did it even come from?

there's not a shred of evidence

therefore it was created in order to rationalize the human condition and protect social orders

[Brainbox]

the concept of soul - where did it even come from?

there's not a shred of evidence

therefore it was created in order to rationalize the human condition and protect social orders

Hmm, maybe not to rationalize, but to act as a irrational placeholder for all the aspects of human behaviour that are or were not understood or misunderstood?

[mentatpsi]

the concept of soul - where did it even come from?

there's not a shred of evidence

therefore it was created in order to rationalize the human condition and protect social orders

Hmm, maybe not to rationalize, but to act as a irrational placeholder for all the aspects of human behaviour that are or were not understood or misunderstood?

lol i'm going to go a bit far on this one... but why is it irrational to believe in an "eternal" energy within you... in all truth you're just recycled energy... that is what matter is... in fact you now know how to calculate it

the irrational components of these thoughts is to try and manifest our own internal desires and psychological issues onto this mental construct by providing assumed certainties onto what this component might be. The biggest flaw is making absolute assumptions onto something that we do not and can not know. If it escapes observation and cannot be tested how can you know it?

We only see it as irrational now that our society values scientific inspection using empirical evidence, now that we have the means of exploring such topics. It is a luxury of sorts to live in a time where free thought is valued higher, can be entertained publicly, and can be paid for .

In the end i think it is wiser to maintain an uncertainty on these concepts, leaving them to their most essential truths (very little ) until they can be tested in full (if ever).

[abolitionist]

the concept of soul - where did it even come from?

there's not a shred of evidence

therefore it was created in order to rationalize the human condition and protect social orders

Hmm, maybe not to rationalize, but to act as a irrational placeholder for all the aspects of human behaviour that are or were not understood or misunderstood?

lol i'm going to go a bit far on this one... but why is it irrational to believe in an "eternal" energy within you... in all truth you're just recycled energy... that is what matter is... in fact you now know how to calculate it

the irrational components of these thoughts is to try and manifest our own internal desires and psychological issues onto this mental construct by providing assumed certainties onto what this component might be. The biggest flaw is making absolute assumptions onto something that we do not and can not know. If it escapes observation and cannot be tested how can you know it?

We only see it as irrational now that our society values scientific inspection using empirical evidence, now that we have the means of exploring such topics. It is a luxury of sorts to live in a time where free thought is valued higher, can be entertained publicly, and can be paid for .

In the end i think it is wiser to maintain an uncertainty on these concepts, leaving them to their most essential truths (very little ) until they can be tested in full (if ever).

nothing is eternal

the whole soul in a bubble idea is not modelled after anything seen in nature - everything changes and eventually loses it's original form entirely

only by continually renewing all aspects of our biology could we become immortal - though we'd still undergo constant change

just like free-will - is there anything in the universe that is free of interactions or other variables that determine it's state?

we can measure the electrical activity of the body, but all forms of energy change and eventually become something else

Edited by abolitionist, 28 March 2008 - 09:10 PM.

[mentatpsi]

the concept of soul - where did it even come from?

there's not a shred of evidence

therefore it was created in order to rationalize the human condition and protect social orders

Hmm, maybe not to rationalize, but to act as a irrational placeholder for all the aspects of human behaviour that are or were not understood or misunderstood?

lol i'm going to go a bit far on this one... but why is it irrational to believe in an "eternal" energy within you... in all truth you're just recycled energy... that is what matter is... in fact you now know how to calculate it

the irrational components of these thoughts is to try and manifest our own internal desires and psychological issues onto this mental construct by providing assumed certainties onto what this component might be. The biggest flaw is making absolute assumptions onto something that we do not and can not know. If it escapes observation and cannot be tested how can you know it?

We only see it as irrational now that our society values scientific inspection using empirical evidence, now that we have the means of exploring such topics. It is a luxury of sorts to live in a time where free thought is valued higher, can be entertained publicly, and can be paid for .

In the end i think it is wiser to maintain an uncertainty on these concepts, leaving them to their most essential truths (very little ) until they can be tested in full (if ever).

nothing is eternal

the whole soul in a bubble idea is not modeled after anything seen in nature - everything changes and eventually loses it's original form entirely

only by continually renewing all aspects of our biology could we become immortal - though we'd still undergo constant change

just like free-will - is there anything in the universe that is free of interactions or other variables that determine it's state?

hence why i quoted the eternal in my post lol.

but ya you are right, everything changes, nothing maintains the same form... but there's this point you have to see that someone once told me about the same concept... what of the dynamics regulating the universe (the laws and constants)... we make calculated predictions taking them as the foundations...

and of free will, everything is also regulated by probabilities. Though a reductionist might say that probabilities are just accounting for factors that are beyond our current understanding. It could just be a comforting concept, free-will... but your response to external interactions are heavily reliant on a lot of different factors, and over time your own views can shift as events (internal or external) occur. If you take something such as vitamins, nootropics, or whatever, you are altering the system, it will behave differently (over time or immediately). I suppose this argument can lean towards both sides... but the mind also alters the biology... and cognition is a very dynamic occurrence.

Shrugs... It's a difficult concept to argue with. In the end it depends on how much of a reductionist you are... the way i see it though, it really doesn't matter, as long as it not used as an excuse for just accepting where one is in life without seeing change as possible .

Edited by mysticpsi, 29 March 2008 - 04:20 AM.

[abolitionist]

the concept of soul - where did it even come from?

there's not a shred of evidence

therefore it was created in order to rationalize the human condition and protect social orders

Hmm, maybe not to rationalize, but to act as a irrational placeholder for all the aspects of human behaviour that are or were not understood or misunderstood?

lol i'm going to go a bit far on this one... but why is it irrational to believe in an "eternal" energy within you... in all truth you're just recycled energy... that is what matter is... in fact you now know how to calculate it

the irrational components of these thoughts is to try and manifest our own internal desires and psychological issues onto this mental construct by providing assumed certainties onto what this component might be. The biggest flaw is making absolute assumptions onto something that we do not and can not know. If it escapes observation and cannot be tested how can you know it?

We only see it as irrational now that our society values scientific inspection using empirical evidence, now that we have the means of exploring such topics. It is a luxury of sorts to live in a time where free thought is valued higher, can be entertained publicly, and can be paid for .

In the end i think it is wiser to maintain an uncertainty on these concepts, leaving them to their most essential truths (very little ) until they can be tested in full (if ever).

nothing is eternal

the whole soul in a bubble idea is not modeled after anything seen in nature - everything changes and eventually loses it's original form entirely

only by continually renewing all aspects of our biology could we become immortal - though we'd still undergo constant change

just like free-will - is there anything in the universe that is free of interactions or other variables that determine it's state?

hence why i quoted the eternal in my post lol.

but ya you are right, everything changes, nothing maintains the same form... but there's this point you have to see that someone once told me about the same concept... what of the dynamics regulating the universe (the laws and constants)... we make calculated predictions taking them as the foundations...

and of free will, everything is also regulated by probabilities. Though a reductionist might say that probabilities are just accounting for factors that are beyond our current understanding. It could just be a comforting concept, free-will... but your response to external interactions are heavily reliant on a lot of different factors, and over time your own views can shift as events (internal or external) occur. If you take something such as vitamins, nootropics, or whatever, you are altering the system, it will behave differently (over time or immediately). I suppose this argument can lean towards both sides... but the mind also alters the biology... and cognition is a very dynamic occurrence.

Shrugs... It's a difficult concept to argue with. In the end it depends on how much of a reductionist you are... the way i see it though, it really doesn't matter, as long as it not used as an excuse for just accepting where one is in life without seeing change as possible .

Fortunately I see the understanding of no-free-will or no-soul as allowing for infinite possibilities - I see these memes as justification for not moving ahead with biotechnological interventions.

The mind is biological - we just haven't learned the laws yet.

[DukeNukem]

>>> The copy of the OBJECT carries on living, and the original OBJECT is destroyed. The PERSON continues. We agree on what happens to the object. The question is what happens TO THE PERSON. I am saying that personhood by nature is not bound to a particular object. <<<

I'm not too studied on this subject, so I'm bound to make rookie assumptions. However, the way I see it, while to the rest of the world my copy is, in effect, me. If I'm the destroyed original, then I no longer exist. This is why I don't care about uploading copies of myself to storage, because if I'm gone (speaking of the original me), then I don't give a poop about my copies living on. I won't be here to enjoy this angle on immortality. The only angle worth a damn to me is the one in which the original survives.

[abolitionist]

>>> The copy of the OBJECT carries on living, and the original OBJECT is destroyed. The PERSON continues. We agree on what happens to the object. The question is what happens TO THE PERSON. I am saying that personhood by nature is not bound to a particular object. <<<

I'm not too studied on this subject, so I'm bound to make rookie assumptions. However, the way I see it, while to the rest of the world my copy is, in effect, me. If I'm the destroyed original, then I no longer exist. This is why I don't care about uploading copies of myself to storage, because if I'm gone (speaking of the original me), then I don't give a poop about my copies living on. I won't be here to enjoy this angle on immortality. The only angle worth a damn to me is the one in which the original survives.

Thank you for saying this!!!

Even if the copy does believe it's the original we still die - uploading is for others not for our own immortality.

[NickC11]

Reminds me of that movie, The Prestige. The magician essentially clones himself to pull of a teleportation/escape from a water-filled cage trick, but the problem is he doesn't want two of himself around, so each time one "clone" will be trapped inside a water-filled cage and the other will arrive safely at a destination around the theatre.

Anyways, sadly there really isn't much proof going for the notion of a soul(21 grams doesn't count!). However, also sadly, isn't it so much nicer to use such a concept to rationalise actions and give more meaning to life, rather then viewing people as only biological mass. Frankly, I think if the concept of the soul were to be uterly disproved, ethics would go out the window and right now the masses of our world are no where near handling such ideas(e.g. religion would screw it up).