>DUDE TELEPORTING / CLONING KILLS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS AND REPLACES

If you actually understood the hypothetical mechanics of teleportation, you wouldn't ask this question.

To be able to say that it kills "you", one has to believe in an immaterial aspect of personhood that is somehow bound to a specific body, yet separate. Otherwise, a physical copy of a body is no different from living day to day. Personhood is the ultimate illusion.

>>8184574
Atoms of clone subject are scanned, logged as information, information is sent over a communication medium, information is received on the other end, clone subject is reconstructed using the received information that corresponds to the subject's atoms.

No?

>>8184574
There are no "hypothetical mechanics of teleportation".
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

>>8184610
I don't think it needs to be an exact copy. Nothing in this world we ever manufacture is identical to one another.

>>8184565
well if you think of teleporting as destroying you then building an exact copy it makes sense

if you destroy a consciousness and end the stream then rebuild it somewhere else wouldn't it be another conscious stream

>>8184626
What about a small child that falls asleep on the couch and wakes up in their bed because their dad picked them up and moved them while they were sleeping? That's one destroyed stream of consciousness being rebuilt in a different location when the kid wakes up.

>>8184629
you don't destroy your brain/consciousness when you go to sleep

>>8184631
What makes you think that? How do you know the conciousness you went to sleep with is the same one you woke up with?

>>8184634
well considering when i go to sleep i don't die i'd say that i do

look i'm not going to sit here on /sci/ trying to explain this again

either understand or don't it's not my problem

>>8184640
Teleporting DOES kill you though

>>8184640
So... you conciousness continues to exist when you're unconscious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Since our cells renew constantly, apparently the exact copy thing doesnt matter. Frankly at quantum level particles are identical anyway, there is no way to prove that you are made of new atoms when the machine reconstructs you. If the deconstruction and reconstruction are done in the right timing, why not

>>8184642
Being less conscious != being unconscious
See : dreaming

>>8184648
What about people who don't dream?

>>8184644
>Since our cells renew constantly
Nope, not all.
Digestive tract cells renew a lot, and all epithelia in general.
But neurons never renew (bare some very specific regions), and unless you imply consciouness stems from the whole body, this argument isn't sound.

>>8184610
That's why there are no hypothetical mechanics of cloning. See quantum teleportation for something more relevant. But OP's greentext is still roughly accurate.

>>8184668
no argument is sound because we haven't defined consciousness

>>8184668
I have read that neurons renew as well unlike the popular belief

>>8184565
obviously, philosophers are smarter than scientists and you should believe what they say.

>>8184565
>>DUDE TELEPORTING / CLONING KILLS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS AND REPLACES IT WITH SOMEBODY ELSE LMAO
Well sort of, but for all intents and purposes, from the perspective of the new person and everyone observing, the new thing is as you as the pre-teleported you was. It's also worth noting that as long as the failure rate was minimal evolution would probably select for humans which didn't mind deadly teleportation processes eventually. From your genes' point of view it makes no difference if 'you'/your consciousness dies as long as they still exist and something is piloting the body they reside in effectively.

There is no problem of consciousness. Teleporting ends one copy of you and creates another copy of you. It doesn't make sense to force some kind of experience on top of this.

>Hurr durr I copy my hard drive to another computer and then smash the original, what did my computer FEEL man???

>>8185266
Quiet zombie. Humans are talking.

>>8185275
I just don't see a problem. I think if you made sufficiently complex information processors they would naturally pose these questions about identity and thought. It doesn't mean there's something special going on. If anything, my view is optimistic. If there's something really special about consciousness that ends at death, for me at least that's much more depressing.

>>8185275
Not him but humans are just biological autonomous robots. A completely accurate physical copy in a new location is identical to the original, destroyed version.

>consciousness is special because it ''''''''''feels''''''''' special
>am i being scientific yet?

how is it supposed to feel? If you made a computer that could gather information about the world and form abstract questions, wouldn't it inevitably pose questions about the nature of thought?

>>8184565
>Is this true?

It's true for sleeping and blinking and not blinking too. You pass from a previous state that are no longer you and you have no control over. The persistency is just an illusion, I can load a game of CIV 5 on my laptop that I previously played on my desktop. It's the same game despite the hardware being changed.

>>8184610
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
This has no practical signficance for "cloning" or "teleportation" of reliably-behaving macroscopic systems, like a living being or non-quantum computer, which operate in such a way that they produce consistent behavior irrespective of quantum randomness.

The only thing it requires the loss of in a copied object is short-lived quantum states. For instance, you can't perfectly clone a photon to test its polarization on multiple axes and break quantum encryption (however, imperfect cloning is allowed, and must be accounted for in designing quantum encryption protocols).

Please stop pretending that quantum jargon means what it sounds like to a layman.

>>8185281
>Not him but humans are just biological autonomous robots. A completely accurate physical copy in a new location is identical to the original, destroyed version.
That doesn't negate consciousness and his pretending it doesn't exist is silly as you can measure it's relationship with individual neurons.

>>8185302
>That doesn't negate consciousness and his pretending it doesn't exist is silly as you can measure it's relationship with individual neurons.
If consciousness correlates 1:1 with neurons then teleportation should preserve it.

>>8184565
Is your consciousness that existed 2 seconds ago dead?

Wouldnt teleportation stop all electrical activity in the body?

>>8184709
If you are cloned sleeping, from which body will you experience reality when both of you wake up at the same moment? Assume that both original and clone have the same brain states when waking up.

>>8184565
it's funny how parts of /sci/ can't grasp this concept

>>8185762
and you're implying that you can? guess what - you can't.

>>8185322
The original. Unless your brain is directly connected to the clones and the brains function in tandem you are still separate people. You might have the same personality, even the same memories, but the second a stream of consciousness between two brains is severed they begin to diverge immediately. Your conscious mind isn't some mystical metaphysical cloud that's just stapled to your body, it is a result of the functions of your brain and is most highly expressed when your brain is in high gear while you're awake. Unless the clone bodies are being remote controlled by a single brain, they are different individuals.

>>8185309
Dollar bills aren't 1:1 identical retard

>>8184565
defragmenting X organism gradually and then converting/fusing its particles into data compactible with the medium of teletransportion and then sending them to destination. Once there the data is converted back to its original form. No death or anything involved.

>>8184659
your brain is still actively streaming information

>>8185943
Right, conscious experience comes from brain states. What I need to know is what causes the original to wake up perceiving the world from the same body as before sleep. If what causes consciouness are the brain states alone, then why am I feeling the same body when waking up, if my clone is waking up at the same moment with the same brain states?
I am not defending dualism here, just want to know how to solve this by means of matter.

>>8184565
God here, it's true. Souls cannot be copied or teleported except by me.

yeah I'm not teleporting until teleportation supports some sort of reality warp

>>8184577
This

>>8184577
No, you're wrong. God is real, and souls exist.

of course its true. if you destroy someone and make a copy of them some where else what the fuck do you think is gonna happen?

>>8184577

holy shit you're retarded

this is on the same level as that movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger gets cloned.

>hurrdurrr if i make a copy of myself im immortal some how durrrr

File: pepedurr.png (76KB, 215x219px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 215x219px

>nearly every post ITT

File: fucking dualists.gif (208KB, 504x2948px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 504x2948px

>>8186578
This.
Only space-time bending for me, if not available i'll take the long road thank you very much suicidal fellows.

One thing puzzle me though, there's no way the destruction process is really needed, isn't it ?
Why not just construct a clone on the other planet ( using teleportation for intraplanetary travel is beyond retarded ) ?
Why not just send the data about you without desintegrating yourself ?

>>8186858

top fucking lel at that pic

tards ITT BTFO

>>8186858
What if you wanna come back?

>>8186163
because nothing destroyed your consciousness

sleep is just your brain doing different things and where you aren't using your senses

>>8186855
>YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT BUT DON'T ASK FOR AN ARGUMENT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ONE

>>8184565
Yes. Think about it, if a perfect clone is created, do you magically see through its eyes? No. So if the original dies, only the clone gets to continue experiencing external stimuli (being conscious).

People who say the copy will be someone else fail to understand that this happens all the time to us anyways.

The human body replaces 98% of its atoms within a single year with new ones. Your consciousness most likely undergoes the same process, replacing a part here and there with a copy. The "you" of a year ago is gone. "You" died a dozen times over already.

>>8187344
It is in my best interest to preserve my consciousness as long as I can. Even if it ceases to exist when I sleep, I'll try my damnedest to not kill it by teleportation early.

>>8187348
What if you get teleported while you sleep?

>>8187350
Then the Jews have won

>>8184565
Teleportation doesn't copy you, nor does it destroy you. You are converted into waves of energy which are then converted back to matter. This is star trek nonsense of course, but you never at any point cease to exist, you merely change states.

Consciousness doesn't come in distinct units. It's a phenomenon of brain activity, it's not one thing a person has.

So >KILLS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS AND REPLACES IT WITH SOMEBODY ELSE
is undefined.

>>8187361
Conscioussness is more aking to something your specific brain configuration generates. So if you teleport someone by deconstructing them, converting them into energy and reconstructing them at the target, the new body would generate a new consciousness.

>>8187404
Well, not if it reproduces the same configuration, which is the whole point.

>>8187411
Well but that's not you anymore. In the same sense a computer program doesn't write to the same memory address anymore when you restart it, your consciousness would be identical to the old one, except it's not "you" behind the wheel anymore.

>Teleporting will kill you but build a perfect clone of your current self at the destination
Would you do it, /sci/? It has all the advantages of suicide, with none of the negatives. "You" are still there, the others can't tell a difference. But you get to be dead.
Free of all bullshit. Without any worries as it's no longer up to you to do anything. And yet "you" might still do great things.

Swamp man theory look it up dingus

>>8187416
>Well but that's not you anymore.
That's a meaningless statement. It depends on how "you" is defined, you're just punting the question into that definition.

To quote
>>8187404
>Conscioussness is more aking to something your specific brain configuration generates.

The point of the teleportation experiment is that the configuration is reproduced, otherwise you'll have a different object.

During normal biological existence, the configuration changes all the time in small ways, so transmission changes within those ranges are no more relevant than they are in ordinary survival without teleportation.

>>8187451
>The point of the teleportation experiment is that the configuration is reproduced, otherwise you'll have a different object.
But I can very quickly prove that whole idea wrong. Suppose you do the entire experiment, but you skip deconstruction part.

Now there's two of you, which one are you in control of, which one is "you"?

>>8187455
It depends on how you define "you". According to your configuration definition, both are "you".

>>8187459
Obviously, their configurations diverge once they make different perceptions and interactions with their environment.

>>8187459
What I mean is who's behind the steering wheel, who is looking through your eyes.

>>8187461
I don't know what that means. I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what consciousness is.

Consciousness is not a personal soul that is tied to your identity, it is just a phenomenon of local brain activity.

>>8187461
your question doesn't make any sense. both are you. both look through their own eyes

>>8187467
You're intentionally being stupid right now, you know exactly what I mean. There can't be two you's, there is you and a copy. That's the entire conundrum.

>>8187466
I think you're the one with the flawed understanding. I'm not talking about them not having a conscisciousness, I'm talking about the inability for you to posess two bodies.

>>8187474
>you know exactly what I mean
I know you're confused as fuck

1) There's a single organism with a single brain
2) Organism gets cloned
3) There are two organisms, each with their own brain. Both have (for a very short time) the exact same configuration as the first one, then a very similar one.

Which part don't you understand? What the fuck is "you" and what the fuck do you mean by "the inability for you to posess two bodies"?

>>8187474
>I'm talking about the inability for you to posess two bodies.
Consider two "you"s, monday you and tuesday you.

Monday you exists next monday and tuesday you exists next tuesday.

They are very similar, but one exists on monday and the other on tuesday, that is, they exist in different locations in spacetime.

One of them is a little hotter because the air is hotter and the other is a little fatter because he ate more. One has a bad mood while the other has a little better mood. One sees mostly red colors, the other sees mostly black and white movies.

Two "yous" in different locations, with two similar but slightly different bodies. Two distinct conscious perspectives.

This happens ALL THE TIME during normal survival.

>>8187480
This is literally my post here: >>8187344

>>8187479
I think you're entirely unfamiliar with the concept that we're talking about here. I suggest you read about it a little and then come back.

>>8187482
Explain then if you're so smart, you pedantic piece of shit. 100% sure it's just you're too retarded to get it.

>>8187487
Your ego is part of your consciousness. If you teleport, a new body is created at the location, which generates a new consciousness, but it cannot generate your ego, instead it creates a new ego.

This can be anecdotally proven by turning off the deconstructor of the teleporter, resulting in you and a copy of you. Both are you down to the last atom, but only one of them has your ego.

Right now your ego is what allows you to move your muscles to type words into your computer. If you clone yourself with a teleporter, you will not be in control of the other body, some other ego will be.

I can not put this into simpler words, if you don't get it now, then I give up on you.

>>8187497
That thing you call an "ego" (not the usual use of the term btw) is a superfluous entity that we can Occham's Razor away.

>>8184565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman

It depends on whether consciousness is a direct result of physical interactions of matter.

If so, then technically yes, but no. If you clone your exact physical state at a particular moment in time and materialize it, it is a successful clone, but it would be imperfect due to the interactions that happen within the time frame of the clone's materialization and the copying of your matter. If it is possible to complete rematerialize a representation of someone's physical state at some time, then human identity goes out the window. Assuming your clone is somehow copied and materialized perfectly instantaneously, the only thing separating you from your clone is minor differences in phenomena that will grow over time. While it would be far more similar to you than anything else on the planet, it is impossible for it to remain exactly identical to you unless it received the exact same phenomena and physical interactions. Human identity would be pushed from simple resemblance and behavior to quantum structure and interactions.

If consciousness and matter are two separate entities, then definitely not, assuming your mind reclaims your teleported body without a hitch. However, based on the ridiculous amount of evidence thus far suggesting that anything we observe (including ourselves) is the direct result of some physical interaction, this would be a monumental discovery outside of teleportation. Teleportation would be a small drop in the bucket of implications that dualism's validity would produce. Further experiments would shift dramatically towards accessing this realm of mental matter.

To conclude with a simple answer to your question: Nobody knows for sure yet.

>>8187497
>Right now your ego is what allows you to move your muscles to type words into your computer.
No, that is done by my motor cortex in collaboration with my Broca's area.

>>8187497
okay, I understand what's going on. you're talking about a specific outdated, useless interpretation by hundreds of years old continental philosophy
fuck off, this is a science board

>>8187503
You can occham's razor your existence away? I'd like to see that.

You might also call it sensory processing algorith for all I care. There must necessarily a part of you that cannot be copied, even if you make a atom for atom copy with a machine of yourself.

This ethereal something, however you may call it, is fundamentally responsible for your actions right now.

Consider this abstraction: Your body is a remote controlled machine, the something that is controlling the remote is what I'm talking about. You may copy the machine, but now there's someone else controlling it.

>>8187509
No? I'm talking about the physical inevitability that your consciousness isn't something that can be cloned without changing something about it.

If you make 4 copies of yourself, you don't suddenly turn into a hyper efficient collective that share their thoughts and emotions.

At the point of cloning, you stop being one entity and become two. You diverge from that point, conscioussness included.

Fucking retards ITT I swear.

>>8187497
Jesus this is a load of nonsense.
1) Define consciousness and ego
2) Prove ego and consciousness exist
3) Prove that teleporting generates a new consciousness but not a new ego
4) Prove that teleporting generates a new ego
5) Define having an ego
6) Prove that in the cloning case the first person has the ego but the second one can't
7) Prove that this ego is what lets us act

All scientifically ,else fuck off

>>8187515
the things you say don't make any sense at all. your terms aren't well defined, and it's just senseless babble. it's not science. it's not philosophy. it's not logic. it's nothing.

>>8187522
>Solve the entire paradox this thread and countless research topics are about pls

Are you retarded?

That's like coming into discussion about black holes, demanding people answer "what are Singularities". Go away.

>>8187526
Provide me with a list of terms, I will only use those to explain it to you.

>>8187527
people who talk about black holes definitely know what singularities of a dynamical system are, you imbecile

File: 1413539969525.jpg (63KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 625x626px

>>8187533
>fancy term for "we don't know"
>BUT WE KNOW XD

>>8187531
yeah, no. you don't know shit and you're an idiotic schizophrenic babbling on about pseudo metaphysics

fuck off

This is definitely just a meme.

Identity is just a perception. If you transfer all aspects of your personality, you will be effectively transferring the perception of your identity along with them. You will not notice any difference or any break in your self-perception.

It's the same as with simulating your identity. In this case, however, if you do not destroy the original, as you are likely not to, the _original_ will feel like nothing happened to it, as it will not be able to perceive what its simulation is perceiving, even though in fact you will be in two places at once. You as the simulation, at least, will be astounded to see your original frustrated at the failure of the experiment. The only way to avoid this would be to create simulation with a direct link to your mind. However, with this link, both your original and the simulation will feel like one person, except with expanded powers of perception. To assure a seamless transition, processes in the brain will have to be shut down gradually, until finally only the simulation remains. Your simulation self will then feel as though its perception had been transferred in whole.

>>8187536
a singularity isn't a fancy term for we don't know, you imbecile
a singularity is a well defined mathematical term for points of a vector field

>>8187537
Alright, shitposter.

>>8187543
>babble on about "ego" and "consciousness" and a made up ill-defined "paradox"
>call others shitposters when they tell you to fuck off

what's next? you were only pretending to be retarded?

>>8187542
>>8187533
>imbecile
W-Well you're an asshat! Haha!

>>8187542
Which apart from agreeing that a Singularity is a point in space with no size and apparent infinite space curvature is exactly nothing you dumb nigger. Kill yourself.

>>8187546
Nice shitposting, cuck.

>>8187547
>oh no he showed I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, better focus on him insulting me!

>>8187542
XDDDDDDDDDDDD

this is you, dumbo.

>>8187542
>>8187546
Dumbest retards in the thread.

>>8187538
This

>>8187515
>You can occham's razor your existence away?
Nice try. You're pushing your "ego" nonsense into the definition of the personal pronoun again. You probably hope that no one notices this.

>You might also call it sensory processing algorith for all I care.
Except the sensory pocessing apparatus in your brain is part of the physical configuration.

>There must necessarily a part of you that cannot be copied, even if you make a atom for atom copy with a machine of yourself.
>This ethereal something, however you may call it, is fundamentally responsible for your actions right now.
Utter garbage, completely made up for no reason.

>Your body is a remote controlled machine, the something that is controlling the remote is what I'm talking about.
Except that the brain structures which control it are part of the configuration, which is copied.

>>8187548
>you can't study singularities
way to show you never took a class in ODEs or dynamic systems

why the fuck are you even here? do you feel smart posting senseless babble in a board which says "science"?

>>8187555
You're directly contradicting yourself. If you make a copy, you cannot possibly find your own identity reside in two bodies, as you have either copied the identity as well, resulting in two, or the copy is impossible in the first place, meaning you made a vegetable.

There can not be a result where you share an identity across two bodies, therefor your identity is not part of the physical configuration, therefor a teleporter will kill you and replace you with a copy that THINKS it's you.

>>8187556
Way to show you have no idea about black holes.

>>8187562
Now you just replaced "ego" with "identity" as if that added any explanatory value to your bullshit claims.

You are also ignoring again that the same thing happens during ordinary survival all the time, see
>>8187480

>>8187563
>STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MATH USED TO STUDY BLACK HOLES, I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT COOL WORDS AND PSEUDOSCIENCE BAAWWW

>>8187562
>a perfectly functional body without a piece of imaginary magic (ego/consciousness/identity) is a vegetable
god, you're retarded

>>8187562
>vegetable
That's not true. You will essentially be making a clone, or an identical twin of yourself, in that it will be the same person, but with necessarily different experiences, just by virtue of the inability of two separate physical bodies to occupy the exact same bit of time and space. So you and that new person will be exactly like real life identical twins already are. Identical twins are really spooky things, if you think about it.

>>8187567
>You are also ignoring again that the same thing happens during ordinary survival all the time, see
Just because it happens over time naturally, doesn't make it less true. You're literally admitting defeat here and then saying it doesn't count in the same sentence.

>>8187568
And the shitposter goes full retard.

>>8187575
>same person
Prove it

>>8187563
He's right you know. Singularities are not infinitesimally small. They are still objects with a finite volume. Infinity is always just an approximation for something that is way too big or way too small for us to measure/study/calculate. And I think he's saying singularities are NOT even too small for that.

Last I checked, twins aren't magically linked with their consciscousness and they're practically the same person. This debate is retarded, because a) you think that a cloned person stays 1 entity, because b) you think that cloning them in this way is even possible because c) whatever it is that makes you "you" is definitely confined to your physical brain, so if you make two brains, you get two people, it's that simple, now kill yourself.

>>8187582
>They are still objects with a finite volume
prove it

>>8187578
I mean "same person" in the physical makeup sense only. Different experiences will cause the two personalities to diverge over time, just as with identical twins.

File: 1453607140063.png (158KB, 680x681px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 680x681px

>>>8187582
> Singularities are not infinitesimally small.
>They are still objects with a finite volume
> Infinity is always just an approximation for something

Don't reply, holy fucking shit.

>>8187562
>one has to be you and the other one only thinks it's you
both are you in any way you can measure it, both are different people as well

>>8187588
At the moment of copying, you're already two different person by merit of operating on different hardware.

Next.

>>8187586
That's too complicated for this board. Ask a top physicist to prove it to you.

>>8187576
>You're literally admitting defeat here
What? I don't even know what that means, nor how you arrive at that conclusion.

I was responding to these bullshit claims:
>>8187515
>There must necessarily a part of you that cannot be copied, even if you make a atom for atom copy with a machine of yourself.

>This ethereal something, however you may call it, is fundamentally responsible for your actions right now.

The most charitable interpretation I can cope up with is that we have a very local and transient sense of self, a temporary perception that is constantly destroyed and recreated in time and also during the copying process.

But that is so far from your talk about "ethereal" surplus entities that I'm barely willing to ascribe this trivial point to your position. Not to mention it is indeed trivial and not even specific to the teleportation thought experiment.

>>8187582
no, that's not what I'm saying at all, holy fuck. a singularity is just a point where the orbits of the vector field can't be straightened. so in a way it's "weird" and you can't study it in a simple way

>>8187592
Well I wasn't arguing that they will perceive themselves to be the same person. That's what I just said. I only meant same genetic makeup, etc.

>>8187590
Both are "you" only in the sense that they compose of the same stuff, but that's misusing the english language.

If you build two computers with identical parts, it still makes two computers, not one. It is not the same computer, it is a SIMILAR computer, or if you want to be fancy "equal".

So what you really mean to say, your clone is EQUAL to you, but not the SAME.

>>8187600
see
>>8187601

>>8187592
you are a fucking idiot
they are obviously two different people
asking which one of them is you is a retarded question, because in any way you can define "you" before the cloning, they are both you

>>8187601
>equal doesn't mean the same
fuck off, you are really an idiot
he said exactly what he meant and you were too idiotic to understand: same genetic makeup

>>8187598
There is a difference between the same consciousness and your specific instance of it.

Even if you gradually replace parts naturally of it, so you're not the same you that woke up a year ago, doesn't make it less true.

>>8187605
>because in any way you can define "you" before the cloning, they are both you

This is wrong, because you use an ambigious definition of "you".

The "original" and "copy" are well defined.

>>8187609
Your consciousness isn't encoded in your genes. It's more akin to a charge that's being kept up by your brain.

I wish I could reach through my monitor and slap people in the face ITT.

How can you be this stupid and come here. Please repeat elementary school.

>Hurr they both you, even though they're different people, but they're the same but not equal.

>>8187611
>you use an ambiguous definition of you
really you fucker? you're throwing shit like "ego", "identity" and "consciousness" around but other people are using ambiguous definitions? you're a fucking retard

>your consciousness isn't in your body, it's in your brain
the brain is in the body you unimaginable imbecile

>>8187611
>Even if you gradually replace parts naturally of it, so you're not the same you that woke up a year ago, doesn't make it less true.
Yes, but this is trivial. You can't even go to the bathroom without it happening many times over. So what insight does this add specifially in the context of the teleportation thought experiment?

>>8187616
The difference is that you're wrong.

>>8187616
>Genes == the entire body, all of it

>>8187618
It proves that you die when you teleport. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that this also happens when you take a shit or go to sleep is irrelevant to the discussion.

>>8187619
make a definition of "you" that shows only one of the two can be "you"

File: 1455140776607.jpg (289KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 900x1200px

>>8187616

>>8187616
Stop posting, please!

>>8187625
It kind of is. What it shows is that death is nothing and that in essence we never die.

>>8187625
Irrelevant to the discussion? Really? I think it's your desperate attempt at damage control after you threw concepts like ethemeral ego around.

>>8187626
the original, next

>>8187631
Irrelevant to the teleporter paradox

>>8187632
Entirely irrelevant. You're doing the worst case of the sour grapes i've ever seen in my life, after you got proven wrong by like 6 people, you do NOT get to claim that the whole argument is pointless.

Fuck off back to reddit

>>8187633
Except there is no original anymore after the scanning, since it was changed. So both versions 5 seconds later are not the originals.

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 12.53.16 PM.png (16KB, 107x87px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 107x87px

>>8187616
>>your consciousness isn't in your body, it's in your brain
>the brain is in the body
and your body... is in the WORLD
>[AUDIBLE GASPS]
What does that tell you?

>>8187636
Except that's irrelevant, because this also applies to your family of yesterday. Unless you believe your parents stop being your parents every planck time interval, your logic is flawed.

The original stays the original, even if the clone is now diverged.

The definition holds true.

>>8187633
what the FUCK does the original mean you idiot? the genetic makeup? the body? the configuration?

in any of these both are going to be you

if you add nonsense magic like "ego" then neither could be you, or both could be you, or only one of them, depending on how your magic works

>>8187641
Except that the clone is identical to the original in the same sense in which your parents are identical over planck time intervals (same configuration at different point in spacetime + small changes)

>>8187635
>Irrelevant to the teleporter paradox
It is relevant, because you could choose to teleport gradually, just as you replace the bits of matter in your body gradually and become a physically new thing, but yet feel as though you are the same thing.

We are constantly teleporting into new bodies. We do not "feel" that we died, and that's all we _want_

As long as we have that "feeling", that's all that matters to us, and that's why it's completely relevant.

>>8187644
the instance which existed before the other instance

this isn't hard

>>8187646
Make up your damn mind

>Except that the clone is identical to the original
>Except there is no original anymore after the scanning, since it was changed

In any case, the definition STILL HOLDS TRUE

>>8187647
More like, it shows that we die constantly. Which makes this trivial and irrelevant to the paradox yet again.

>>8187653
It depends on your definition of identity. You have not provided a coherent definition according to which one of them is "you" and the other isn't.

At least not one that allows "you" to meet "your parents" ever again.

>>8187650
>the instance which existed before the other instance
with this definition, that one's you and the other isn't
what the fuck don't you understand here?

>>8187657
>You have not provided a coherent definition according to which one of them is "you" and the other isn't.
Yes I have, here: >>8187633

>>8187659
I understand everything, it's the other cuck who asked me to provide a definition of "you" that excludes the clone, which I have done.

>>8187661
that's not a definition you retard
what you mean is the one that stays in the place the original one was

>>8187661
No you haven't. See >>8187636

You can't have it both ways even though you're trying desperately.

File: 1466717931960.jpg (31KB, 433x419px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 433x419px

>>8187663
>that's not a definition

You're american, aren't you?

>>8187662
what's the paradox you claim? what the fuck do you want? why do you give this retarded thought experiment and this nonsensical definition of "you"?

>>8187664
See
>>8187653

I don't even need to write posts anymore, I can just relay you towards the answers that are already given. Your circular logic won't work here.

>>8187655
You didn't understand the part where what it technically is called ("dying" or "not dying") is completely unimportant, because we just want a feeling of continuity. If I feel that I didn't die, for my purposes, I didn't, even if "physically" I did.

So this semantic discussion is actually what's irrelevant.

Relevance/importance/significance/salience = what we care about as human animals. I dare say that virtually every person alive will not care at all that in the physical or abstract sense they are "dead" if they feel that they are alive/have all of their memories/personality traits that they did yesterday.

>>8187667
Whether or not you die when you get teleported through a star trek teleporter.

It's not hard to understand, but I guess some people just like to argue pointless shit.

>>8187669
Yes, because you are pretending that you haven't read the answers.

>At least not one that allows "you" to meet "your parents" ever again.

Very convenient to just ignore it.

Your position is either utterly trivial or magic garbage, depending on how you define identity.

That ends this discussion for me. You clearly have no more insight to offer.

>>8187671
Ah the classic, when confronted with absolute defeat, just pull the REALITY = PERCEPTION bullshit card.

Yea except I can trump that too, because you're all just a product of my imagination. I am literally god, you lose, go home and eat a cookie.

>>8187675
My definition allows you to meet your parents, YOURS doesn't.

read your own posts before you hit submit.

>>8187676
Why are you talking like 14-year-old? Is it because that's exactly what you are. You didn't understand that at all. Try again.

>>8187672
here's what you did:
>1) Let's say a cloner duplicates a person and puts one here, and another one there
>2) I'm going to call the one that's here "me"
>3) Then something kills me
>Am I dead?

what the fuck did you expect would happen? you're clearly dead, with your idiotic definition. why the fuck were you throwing nonsense like "consciousness" and "ego" around?

File: 184.jpg (29KB, 476x356px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 476x356px

>>8187680
I'm having trouble finding an appropriate reaction for how stupid you are. It should be legal to just execute you on the spot to prevent further contamination of the gene pool.

You're not even talking in the same universe as the grown ups in this thread.

>>8187681
>you're clearly dead,

Glad we finally agree.

>>8187684
you don't realize how retarded it is to define something in a different way so what you want to be true becomes true?

>>8187682
>stupid
I'm just going to ignore any post that contains any words like this one.

>>8187507
What if twins are developed separetely in artificial wombs in two separeted rooms, these rooms being a perfect copy of each other including the wombs and isolated from the outside world.
Nurture and nature being equal, what determines their first person experience on each body from each other?

>Topics about philosophy get more replies and activity than any science topic
I dunno what I even expected.

>>8187689
Did no such thing.

Here is where your logic fails:

Suppose YOU are the inventor of the clone machine. You then use the machine to clone yourself, but you pause the process before it is complete. So the clone right now is some horrifying mess of flesh and blood. Who made the machine? Who is you? Easy answer.

You now finish the process. Who made the machine? Still you, not the clone. The clone has never touched the controls, has never touched any tools that were involved in the creation of the machine. It thinks and acts like you, because it has all your memories and emotions.

You are in many ways like the clone, you THINK the clone is you, because you are a construct that was implanted with the knowledge and memories that would inevitably lead you to believe you that the clone you is you.

However, any impartial observer and the original body can clearly prove this false.

You can even prove it from a causal point of view. Say you made a clone of yourself, then someone else travelled back in time and killed you before you cloned yourself. Would the clone exist? No.
But if you killed the clone, the original would continue to exist. There is no causal path that would allow for the clone to exist without the original.

In any way shape or form, logical, causaul, temporal, the original is the true you and only the clone would disagree, which does make sense, but doesn't make it true.

The end.

>>8187701
>the end
>I am right because I am

if it's a horrifying mess then it's not exactly the same as you were before. of course it's not you.

>impartial observer
>there is a privileged reference frame
>In any way shape or form, logical, causal, temporal, the original is the true you

you're throwing popsci terms around to justify this, but a complete copy of you is as much you as you are

>>8187699
It didn't used to be this way. No, it didn't used to be this way at all.

This is displacement from /lit/ after philosophy became essentially banned there. You can only discuss it there now if you are also discussing a specific philosophy book. So naturally, threads like this, that littered the board before, disappeared overnight.

Now they are here.

>>8187716
not an argument

>>8187726
>ad hominem
>reductio ad absurdum

>fedora logicians everywhere
>only care about WINNING arguments

>you are a weasel mcweaselface
>no you are a cowtitsucker

>i win
>no i win

please

please stop

>>8187734
sounds like loser talk to me, dicklicker

>>8187734
>argument from greentext
pls

>>8187734
Literally no arguments

>>8187716
>if it's a horrifying mess then it's not exactly the same as you were before. of course it's not you.

So if you make a perfect copy, then remove one atom, it's not you anymore? You should really consider making a religion out of your posts, they're about as flimsy and delusional as one.

>>8187701
With both having the same matter configuration, perhaps what could differentiate them is position in space, or some unknown physical property of space determining identity

I don't get why6 people discuss this shit
If you create perfect copy of someone it's still copy and not original
It's like these retards that think uploading yourself to internet gives you immortality are discussing this shit

>>8184579
That's like saying - you have a box you put it on your forehead - you're immortal now .. science.

Now what if you stick that box in your ass - will you still have a soul after that?

>>8187697
I assume you mean what distinguishes their experiences?

Assuming the following:
i. There is an external physical world (the universe) that exists beyond my senses (existentialism)
ii. Events in this universe take place via physical interactions between matter and there exists nothing else (determinism and causality)
iia. Given an exactly identical environment and state of some matter at an arbitrary time, it is possible to repeat the effects this environment has on this matter (this would follow from ii above)

Note: Plus a few other fundamental assumptions that I am probably accidentally omitting.

Answer:
Nothing. If their environments and their matter is 100% identical to a tee, they will behave exactly the same.

General Discussion:
From what I BELIEVE (this should merely be considered an argument at best), there shouldn't be a nature vs. nurture argument. The reason it is typically brought up is disparities in education and abilities of young adults (see: affirmative action, underrepresented minority scholarships, etc.) . Both nature and nurture play equally important roles in the development of a human being towards maturity. Nature seems to represent more of natural potential and aptitude for abilities, while nurture determines the direction that this potential may be applied (i.e. drug runner vs. successful actuary). Both impose their own limits on performance, but nature typically has the final say in what is possible for you, while nurture has the first say in what is possible for you. They're not fighting each other. These disparities are just varying levels of nurture and nature. Some lack the natural finesse to grasp a subject or topic, while others lack the motivation and judgment to pursue it. They both contribute in some aspect.

>>8184565
Cloning unambiguously creates a separate (if identical) entity, cloning and brain uploading are terrible ideas for attaining immortality or teleporting, full stop.

Teleporting, by extension, involves constructing a clone in most sci-fi instances. There are persistence of consciousness questions in any event (how do you know "you" are "you" from 5 minutes ago?), but cloning kills any possibility of a continuous single mind (barring ridiculous shit like your soul just traveling to the new body).

>>8188356
I meant what makes one experience reality from the original's body and not the copy's, if concerning matter, everything is the same from both sides.
What distinguishes both in terms of identity?
The only thing that could do in this case is position in space, I think so.

>>8188429
As in what determines which body you are "attached" to?

The body assuming the previous assumptions. If consciousness is a direct result of physical interactions, then yes, it is tied to the matter involved.

And yes, the only thing distinguishing two PERFECT clones is spatial position. Perfect clones, as in my previous post, refers to when a clone is created instantaneously with the exact same matter, where the cloned subject has had no time to interact with its environment. To be realistic, this perfect clone is impossible to create.

But, this is a hypothetical situation. Assuming both babies are perfectly identical, the first statement holds. At this point, human identity is completely dissolved because of the existence of two identical groups of matter in two identical environments.

If this were realistic, identity would simply get more specific and cloning would take some finite amount of time, thereby making it impossible to create a clone instantaneously. Even if there was some parallel scanner than scanned each quantum unit in your body at the same time, it would still take a finite time to complete because it requires physical interaction to occur in order for it to scan.

Hopefully this answers your question. It doesn't mean much, as none of my assumptions are guaranteed.

>>8188494
Ok, thanks for the reply.

I was trying to devise a thought experiment which would show that once the identity of a complex (human) structure is dissolved, it would imply that some unique property (unknown) determines 'you' to this or that structure, but it doesnt follow...

>>8186858
Playing ZTD I take it.

>>8185318
I think so, yeah. I think one of humanities biggest mistakes was defining life and death as very binary things, which gave way to concepts like souls and permanent identity. I don't think those concepts are real, nor do I think that people would be as obsessed with religion, ego and mysticism if culture wasn't set up that way.

>>8184659
You still dream retard, but you don't remember it.
During the night your brain produces many dreams but you remember only the last.