Your clone takes over when you die. Is that you or not?

[Feck]

I dunno about the word consciousness ,smells a bit like an ID version of soul ,'you' just make it all up anyway (consciousness that is) . If the original is gone and the exact copy does not even know it is a copy then It is just the same uninterrupted
stream of consciousness .Only an outside observer is aware that anything has changed Your copy would carry on as YOU

I refuse to let fear of "religious overtones" stifle my use of the English language. If I say "consciousness", then that's what I mean, not "God's little finger puppet."

I'm not sure i believe that conciousness is a real thing ,that's all , especially as it is an intangible 'thing' ,a concept .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I dunno about the word consciousness ,smells a bit like an ID version of soul ,'you' just make it all up anyway (consciousness that is) . If the original is gone and the exact copy does not even know it is a copy then It is just the same uninterrupted
stream of consciousness .Only an outside observer is aware that anything has changed Your copy would carry on as YOU

I refuse to let fear of "religious overtones" stifle my use of the English language. If I say "consciousness", then that's what I mean, not "God's little finger puppet."

I'm not sure i believe that conciousness is a real thing ,that's all , especially as it is an intangible 'thing' ,a concept .

Of course we don't know. As a skeptic I keep that uncertainty in mind.

[Feck]

I dunno about the word consciousness ,smells a bit like an ID version of soul ,'you' just make it all up anyway (consciousness that is) . If the original is gone and the exact copy does not even know it is a copy then It is just the same uninterrupted
stream of consciousness .Only an outside observer is aware that anything has changed Your copy would carry on as YOU

I refuse to let fear of "religious overtones" stifle my use of the English language. If I say "consciousness", then that's what I mean, not "God's little finger puppet."

I'm not sure i believe that conciousness is a real thing ,that's all , especially as it is an intangible 'thing' ,a concept .

Of course we don't know. As a skeptic I keep that uncertainty in mind.

They won't be making copies of anybody soon so the point is moot , guess if they ever do then we might get an answer

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They won't be making copies of anybody soon so the point is moot , guess if they ever do then we might get an answer

I don't know when they'll be cloning people and transferring memories "real time", but it interests me to think about it.

Fun thought. The person dies, but in dying the experience of death is passed to the clone.

[Rum]

Proposed. Clones of you can be created. EVERYTHING that you experience is passed to the clone. When you pop off, the clone is activated. Except for apparent age your friend and lovers can't tell the difference.

Is that you, or is it a copy only?

It's a copy.

The consciousness that is you ceases, and another consciousness is activated in a different body. It has all your experiences yes, but the consciousness is new and separate.

(It's the same problem I've always had with the idea of teleportation - in my mind I can't get past the idea that the original is utterly destroyed, and a copy is built up from transmitted data. As far as the copy is concerned, it's still the same person, but as far as the original is concerned, it's annihilated.)

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is to be 'you'. Your consciousness is not you. Transfer 'it' to another human being and you become that human being. I think it is akin to the glow around a light bulb. The wire (brain and body) does the working and the result is the glow. Same bulb same glow. You can't move the glow to another bulb. So a true clone (with all the memories and baggage, which Gawd was proposing) is identical in every way.

This is at the heart of Buddhist thinking which is why I retain a just a bit of Buddhism in my otherwise religion free head.

[Feck]

They won't be making copies of anybody soon so the point is moot , guess if they ever do then we might get an answer

I don't know when they'll be cloning people and transferring memories "real time", but it interests me to think about it.

Fun thought. The person dies, but in dying the experience of death is passed to the clone.

Now that might fuck you up .....But you have been closer to that than me 'Zilla ,If on waking after one of your close calls how would you have felt to be told that You didn't make it ,but 'Zilla Mk2 had been brought on- line ?

[FBM]

The assumption of being a self is the underlying error that resolves all those conundrums. Selfhood is just a convenient abstraction that facilitates communication. The down-side is that it's a near-universally accepted illusion/delusion that prevents us from apprehending reality as it really is: streams of causally-connected impressions. Communication, strictly speaking, is simply more streams of impressions. As Rum said, "we're" aggregates, and there is no single entity or phenomenon that we can isolate and identify as our 'self', in the same way that 'chair' isn't found in any of its parts.

[leo-rcc]

Nothing new, it is the Ship of Theseus paradox.

After the hero Theseus accomplished his mission to sail to Crete to kill the Minotaur, his ship (Ship 1) was put on display in Athens. As the time went by, its original planks and other parts were replaced one by one with new materials until one day all of its parts were new, with none of its original parts remaining. Do we want to say that the completely rebuilt ship (Ship 2) is the same as the original or that it is a different ship? The case is further complicated. If all the original materials were kept and eventually used to construct a ship (Ship 3), would this ship be the same as the original?

[FBM]

Nothing new, it is the Ship of Theseus paradox.

After the hero Theseus accomplished his mission to sail to Crete to kill the Minotaur, his ship (Ship 1) was put on display in Athens. As the time went by, its original planks and other parts were replaced one by one with new materials until one day all of its parts were new, with none of its original parts remaining. Do we want to say that the completely rebuilt ship (Ship 2) is the same as the original or that it is a different ship? The case is further complicated. If all the original materials were kept and eventually used to construct a ship (Ship 3), would this ship be the same as the original?

Yes, it's nothing new. That's not the point. It's the Ship of Theseus paradox applied to individual human identity. We take our individual identities for granted, even if we don't believe in a soul. What I'm saying is that if you examine the matter closely, you'll find that individual identity itself is an impossibility. Thus, the question of whether or not the clone is 'you' is absurd and begging the question. There is no 'you' to begin with. Never was, never will be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They won't be making copies of anybody soon so the point is moot , guess if they ever do then we might get an answer

I don't know when they'll be cloning people and transferring memories "real time", but it interests me to think about it.

Fun thought. The person dies, but in dying the experience of death is passed to the clone.

Now that might fuck you up .....But you have been closer to that than me 'Zilla ,If on waking after one of your close calls how would you have felt to be told that You didn't make it ,but 'Zilla Mk2 had been brought on- line ?

Wouldn't be an issue for Zilla2. "He" is alive, and everything else is detail for the living. Zilla1, on the other hand, is the one I'm not sure about.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The assumption of being a self is the underlying error that resolves all those conundrums. Selfhood is just a convenient abstraction that facilitates communication. The down-side is that it's a near-universally accepted illusion/delusion that prevents us from apprehending reality as it really is: streams of causally-connected impressions. Communication, strictly speaking, is simply more streams of impressions. As Rum said, "we're" aggregates, and there is no single entity or phenomenon that we can isolate and identify as our 'self', in the same way that 'chair' isn't found in any of its parts.

Okay, then, what is your proof that "self" doesn't exist? Straight question, BTW, as a skeptic I have to admit that there's a doubt.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, it's nothing new. That's not the point. It's the Ship of Theseus paradox applied to individual human identity. We take our individual identities for granted, even if we don't believe in a soul. What I'm saying is that if you examine the matter closely, you'll find that individual identity itself is an impossibility. Thus, the question of whether or not the clone is 'you' is absurd and begging the question. There is no 'you' to begin with. Never was, never will be.

"When an elder learned person says something is possible, he is probably right. When he says something is impossible, he's probably wrong."

[FBM]

The assumption of being a self is the underlying error that resolves all those conundrums. Selfhood is just a convenient abstraction that facilitates communication. The down-side is that it's a near-universally accepted illusion/delusion that prevents us from apprehending reality as it really is: streams of causally-connected impressions. Communication, strictly speaking, is simply more streams of impressions. As Rum said, "we're" aggregates, and there is no single entity or phenomenon that we can isolate and identify as our 'self', in the same way that 'chair' isn't found in any of its parts.

Okay, then, what is your proof that "self" doesn't exist? Straight question, BTW, as a skeptic I have to admit that there's a doubt.

Requiring a proof that something doesn't exist is going about it backwards, actually. If you posit a self, you need to define, identify and isolate exactly what it is that you are calling your 'self' and provide evidence that it does exist.

Is your 'self' your (apparently) physical body? If that's it, then there's no difference between your 'self' before and immediately after you die, as all the matter is still held together for a while. Furthermore, the mass of your body is estimated to be totally replaced by new matter every 7 years or so, so 'you' aren't even physically identical with the material that you identify as your 'self' just a while back.

Is it your consciousness? What's your consciousness apart from the moment-to-moment thoughts, sensations and impressions? Well, they're changing faster than you can be aware of, so what is the 'self' that persists throughout? Memories? There's abundant evidence that memories alter and distort over time, so that hardly qualifies as a single, dicrete entity.

What is the single, discrete entity that you call your 'self'?

[Thinking Aloud]

Whether or not 'consciousness' or 'self' exists is irrelevant to the original question. When this body that I feel I inhabit dies, this thing, whatever it is, that I consider to be me, the workings of my brain, the thing that's thinking, this animal, will cease.

Body #2 might have all that information transferred to it, but it will not be me. I will be dead. It might think it's me, behave like me, have my memories, but it is still a copy - a distinct and separate animal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The assumption of being a self is the underlying error that resolves all those conundrums. Selfhood is just a convenient abstraction that facilitates communication. The down-side is that it's a near-universally accepted illusion/delusion that prevents us from apprehending reality as it really is: streams of causally-connected impressions. Communication, strictly speaking, is simply more streams of impressions. As Rum said, "we're" aggregates, and there is no single entity or phenomenon that we can isolate and identify as our 'self', in the same way that 'chair' isn't found in any of its parts.

Okay, then, what is your proof that "self" doesn't exist? Straight question, BTW, as a skeptic I have to admit that there's a doubt.

Requiring a proof that something doesn't exist is going about it backwards, actually. If you posit a self, you need to define, identify and isolate exactly what it is that you are calling your 'self' and provide evidence that it does exist.

Is your 'self' your (apparently) physical body? If that's it, then there's no difference between your 'self' before and immediately after you die, as all the matter is still held together for a while. Furthermore, the mass of your body is estimated to be totally replaced by new matter every 7 years or so, so 'you' aren't even physically identical with the material that you identify as your 'self' just a while back.

Is it your consciousness? What's your consciousness apart from the moment-to-moment thoughts, sensations and impressions? Well, they're changing faster than you can be aware of, so what is the 'self' that persists throughout? Memories? There's abundant evidence that memories alter and distort over time, so that hardly qualifies as a single, dicrete entity.

What is the single, discrete entity that you call your 'self'?

Okay, so you agree you can't prove it doesn't exist. I'm cool with that. As to "where" self is, let's not get into string theory.