Suppose that someday, when humanity gets advanced enough to do

>>8400535

piss off, philosophy and psychology was killed by science

Although I think all the brain can be segregated down to atomic level and memories and events can be bought back by neurology and stuff, Consciousness may not be created because it has no physical, atomic presence, How can Consciousness be recreated in this method? If not then I cannot,after my death perceive the present as I am right now.

I'm pretty certain I die every day.

>Those few sweet moments when you wake up and don't know who you are before your memories and personality load up

Are you 7 year old you?

Naw nigga he dead. You just got his memory structures in your head.

>>8400539
>Those few sweet moments when you wake up and don't know who you are before your memories and personality load up
that doesn't happen to me

>>8400536

t. hawkings

>>8400541

7 year old me is now me. he didnt die, he just turned into current me

>>8400546
Your mistake is thinking that you are real.

>>8400539

did you delete system32??? you should probably see a doctor if you wake up with amnesia everyday

>>8400547

And why would I not be real?

>>8400538

That is, assuming that dualists are wrong, and that consciousness is solely a byproduct of physical processes.

This shit keeps me up at night

> Fade into oblivion if physicalists are right
> Go to some sort of heaven or extra dimension if dualists are right

And now

> Get remade in 5982 CE if both are correct

Fuck

>>8400535
it would be me. it just would not be me. if you catch my drift.

>>8400591

It would be you, as in Anon, but actually "Anon". I kind of see

>>8400535

if theres an afterlife, the first thing ill do is fuck that frog

File: brutal ahegao.png (252KB, 740x545px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 740x545px

>>8400536
Look at this autist, if you can't phillosophy with science then you are a massive cuck. Hypothetical situations and their implications are a fair deal in science, for exaple the debate on human genome modification due to CRISPR

REMOVE ETERNAL 4CHAN CONTRARIANIST

>>8400535
> i wanna _____ that frog
1/2
i dont think it would be ever possible, but as you said it may be possible in the future.

The very plausible result of a succesful, lets say "mind cloning" would depend of the enviroment. ill get on that later

Also, it wouldn't be "you" in the sense as the same NEET cuck reading 4chan. the mind would have the same characteristics as you but it wouldnt be you on any chance, very much like a clone or like a clip is the same as other clip. Equal, yet not the same.

First: The scientist would need to replicate ALL enviromental and local characteristics of the brain, you implied by chance but "chance" may have its boundaries and there could be a reality or universe where there would be never another one of you.

They would have to replicate physical forces simulating that your brain was in a body, on planet earth on XYZ position being affected by many forces like gravity, electro-magnetic fields, cosmic rays, etc and all shit that is relevant on atomic scale.

>>8400539
confirmed brain tumor

>>8400546

>turned into current me

There is no such process of one "self" turning into another "self." It's all just memories that make "you" now associate with earlier instances of "you."

This is why your hypothetical or any hypothetical involving perfect clones makes most people respond with the belief something is lacking and that it'd be "mere copy" rather than your actual "self." We normally fall victim to the illusion of continuity of "self," but this sort of hypothetical makes us look at things in a way we normally don't and lets us break out of this illusion, although most people only break out of the illusion in reference to the clone and fail to take that extra step towards realizing it doesn't exist in the original either.

>>8400946
>>8400535
2/2
Now back to the possible cases:

You said by chance replicate a brain on a determinate momen so we will keep that as a constant. there are still variables as i said before involved in the outcome so i will expose case by case:

There is a prima variable that is wether """your""" brain would "link" with your actual self or not

A) Quantum tunneling/teleportation/linking (QL) is independant of time and real: This means, if two particles have exactly the same condition they will sincronize or some shit. You would feel all this as a continuum, ergo your past would be what you did before scrolling the vietnamese tapestry opera. Ammusingly your real brain on this timeline could see and feel what """your""" future brain would see as long as the link and conditions are mantained, the possible outcomes could be unconsciousness, brain fart, madness or just a freak out. this could happen to both brains viceversa

B) QL is not real/dependant of time: """your""" brain would pop up into "existance" having a flash vissualization of your actual brain for it to then adapt to its new enviroment. Your brain from the past wouldnt be affected

That said there are three possible outcomes i can currently imagine:

1) """Your""" Brain was cloned into a complex machine that its only purpose is to hold the brain a la Matrixesque, lets call it the Wojak Flask: your consciouss would probably feel a shock like when you wake up from a nightmare or something to addapt to the current simulation or condition from the Wojak Machine. If it is programmed to do nothing but keep the brain alive, then """you""" would feel very confused since your enviroment would be very different from just before like a massive dejavu feeling. If the Wojak machine simulates, it dependes of the simulation but hope u get the feel

2) The brain is cloned into an individual that we shall call "not you": Not you would wake up from a nightmare where he was an horrible neet lurking cuckchan...

>>8400806
>>8400986
3/2

...Not you then could die because your brain has different neurotransmiters, substances and feelings that may or may not comply with the current condition of Not you, most likely not.

If he survives the ordeal then he would stop being you (conscious like) and be someone else

3) The future guys made an advanced Wojak Machine: The future scientist, much like in the island movie, decided that a brain flask is not enough and made a complete clone of you biochemistry wise and by a very small and lucky chance it replicates almost to perfection the conditions you were uppon when lurking cuckchan. In this case Almost You as it shall be called wakes up from a nightmare and then feels like he has been teleported into another situation, much like the feeling ppl who have been knocked out unconscious have. (implying the survival of Almost You)

>>8400946


> gravity, electro-magnetic fields, cosmic rays

Are you implying that in the absence of these, we aren't really conscious? That brings the question, that if you go to die in space or something, away from these forces, and your consciousness is remade in those conditions, then wouldn't that do away with environmental issues? I don't know much about physics to be honest, but it seems weird to imply that these kinds of forces are so impactful to our consciousness that it actually makes up (or is part of) our consciousness

>>8401005
the brain and conscience is extremely dependant of specific molecular conditions, so im guessing that different physic variables could mean a completely different way of thinking. Also cosmic rays is an umbrella term for the different radiations both known and unknown so what happens if the Wojak Machine has different conditions than your "past" self, it could mean that the brain may die instantly

Things like growth and bone density are already affected by lack of gravity, what about brain activity then? Is that the final frontier?

>>8400548
>>8400539
this is not normal dude and u should scan yer noggins

File: 1447983673687.jpg (79KB, 620x827px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 620x827px

>>8400535
Pretty sure it'll come down to being a copy of you, but not actually you as your conscience.

Another person that's every bit like you.

>>8401017

I don't know, OP says that perhaps they match everything down to the atomic level (maybe even subatomic level), so I guess he wants to know what happens if this Wojak Machine has the same conditions as your past self had or, if different conditions, still managed to make an exact copy of you

Do people understand the implications claiming that the copy is somehow different?

>>8401132

this is after a person dies. a clone is done when a person is living, i suppose.

from here, you could make a religious argument and say that there only exists a single soul for each person (you cant have two yous at the same time, youd have a p-zombie). if you are somehow "revived" then your soul goes back to you or something. but remember, i clearly said its a religious argument

scientifically, i dont know if the question of subjectivity out of brain functions means anything in the thought experiment

File: 1474984890378.jpg (74KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1152x864px

>>8400535

It won't be you. Its like copying a piece of paper and then destroying the original. The paper is in every way the same and nobody would be able to find a difference. You are the original piece of paper.

If you died and an exact clone was created with the same memories, you would not come back.

Imagine a cookie
>Cookie is scanned and can be replicated
>Cookie is eaten
>Cookie is replicated
>The original cookie is gone and the clone now exists

If you died and a clone was created, the clone would remember everything up to the point of it's creation , but it would not be aware that it is a clone unless you planned this scenario out before it happened.

>>8401150
>>8401152
Wew lad. I think you need to learn the difference between reality and language used to describe reality. Just because there are symbols referring to some specific arrangement of something, doesn't mean something is a thing in itself.

This video sums it up well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI

>>8401157

So why is it that when you wake up, "you" still exist? The "me" that went to sleep last night is still "me", only I exist today in the present.

>>8401152
>>8401150

So what makes "you", "you" then?

>>8400535
Let's say you have a liter of water.
First, we put it in a bottle.
Then, we put it in a bowl.
Your base product is the same, but it's the environment that shapes it.

>>8401154
>>8401816
>>8402080
OK, we can make TWO of you. Enjoy. That fucking doesn't work.

>>8402091
*that doesn't fucking work
Rereading OP's post, I can imagine this working. The "I" that would come back would be exactly like me, so yes my randomized set of genes and experiences would carry on through life.

Following this line of thought, you could upload your own blueprint and have it rebuilt somewhere else to warp through space, if we do colonize other planets.
Cool

>>8402098
But after the very first moment you either lose your ability to express any synchronisation between your copies or this multi-consciousness begins to contradict any physical data (MRI .. ) because you instantly transfer information based on... nothing

>>8402121
But the physical structure of you body is actually holding the information, so arranging a different set of particles in the same way would be recreating that information, not transfering it

>>8402127
I understood the '' with ''you" as a recreation of yourself, not a transfer.

By synchronisation, do you mean something like multi-consciousness?
Multi-consciousness wouldn't be achieved by this reproduction of your brain and body, we don't have a thread connecting ourselves.

It's not you that's alive, but it's someone that is your exact copy. You can't look inside him/her, but you can look inside yourself, and through yourself you know that person.

Let's say I would die but my consciousness would be reproduced. I would die, but my exact copy gets to live on. Whether that's you or not, is philosophical. I believe it is me, however I also admit my original body would be dead.

As for 2 copies living at the same time, when time passes, so will the likeness of these two individuals. Their experiences would be different, seeing as we can't physically be at the same spot at the same time.
They'll grow apart.

>>8402098
This guy can't read.

>>8402121

Doesn't the information have a physical basis then? It doesn't come from nothing, it comes from some physical representative. That is, assuming that your "essence" has a physical representative

File: wojak machine.png (4MB, 2769x2400px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2769x2400px

Can we all agree that even considering the possibility of sinchronization, the new individual brain is a completely different thing that past guy?

One entity cannot sinchronize with itself, it needs another one

>>8402769

It shouldn't be different, if the new brain has the same structure, memories, etc. all the way down to the subatomic level, as your old, then it should bring "you" back to life.

>>8400550
State what you would have that that copy wouldn't, to be able to distinguish the two.

File: 1446163999011.jpg (33KB, 453x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 453x500px

>>8400946
>all shit that is relevant on atomic scale

The brain's structure doesn't get down to the atomic scale, only the molecular.

gtfo with this special snowflake philosophical rumination garbage.

>>8402899

How did you get from reality to individuality?

I don't know what I would have that my clone/remake wouldn't have. Some sort of non-physical piece, perhaps, I think??? Thats the best I can do

>>8402877

>It shouldn't be different, if the new brain has the same structure, memories, etc. all the way down to the subatomic level, as your old, then it should bring "you" back to life.

There's an explanation that makes it both not different and not "you." That explanation is that there is no "you" module to begin with. It's a useful fiction that lets organisms associate with prior versions of "themselves" earlier along the temporal axis based on memory data. Nothing you include in the copy will ever be "you" because there is no such thing as "you"-ness in objective / physical reality. It won't be "you," but neither will "you" have continuity of "self" with "you" from five minutes earlier.

If the universe is deterministic and cyclic, are you you in every cycle or is there just an exact copy of you that relives that iteration of your infinite number of lives? Are you only the current cycle - the previous iterations are gone and the future iterations won't be you - or are you every iteration?

>>8400946
Does anyone know the source for this image?
I know the manga this image came from, it was fucking disgusting, but an amazing fap, I can remember what it was about, but I cannot for the life of me remember who made this.

>>8402990
Never mind, found it, it's by artist 774, search him up on exhentai he's fucking amazing.

>>8402877
but it wouldnt be "you", only a clone

>>8402877
except it would be different

you could do the same thing to a living person - copy their molecular makeup - and get a clone

the only difference is that in the other case you kill the original person

>>8402944

But if subjective self-awareness is a result of physical processes in the brain, should that subjective self-awareness also exist in a replica, even if its an illusion? What makes you say that that illusion is something individual and cannot be copied even if its a physical process?

>>8400539

that sounds a lot like something you should see a doctor for

>>8400539

1. Nothing is wrong with me
2. Nothing is wrong with me
3. I am totally fine
4. Nothing is wrong with me

>>8400539

> Those few sweet moments when you wake up and don't know who you are before your memories and personality load up

what

>>8400545
>>8400548
>>8400952
>>8401021
>>8403163
>>8403649
It's just hypnagogia chill out guys.

>>8403663

Hypnagogia is the experience of the transitional state from wakefulness to sleep, not the other way around

>>8403703
Shit you're obviously correct.
Anyway I have it too, sometimes, though not very often.

>>8400535
>gets advanced enough to do stuff not imaginable today
Today we perform many simulations and some people who die are brought back to life.

>>8400539

do you have a brain tumor

>>8400547
"Yea so I'm like really deep, nothing is real and shit. My understanding of the world is much more complex than all of yours"

>>8402899
That's not reality. If something is the same as something else it doesn't make it not real

>>8400535
It would just be another person who is exactly the same as you. That doesn't suddenly make them you. It's a separate entity at a separate time that happens to be the same as you. That's why it's a copy; if you make a copy of a page of a book that copy is still it's own separate thing, despite having the same words.

>>8400538
Well I somewhat agree with you but you have contradicting statements. If you believe that the brain and it's memories can be reduced to a basic system at the atomic level, then consciousness must also be able to be reduced in the same way. My conclusion, using this logic, is that consciousness is a result of the complex functions of this system, which is what we have decided memories and the brain to be. This isn't necessarily my opinion but I'm just working off of different directions that you could go in based off of your initial idea of the brain.

>>8403752
I also said my conclusion but it's not mine, I'm sure many people have said the same thing. Just want to make sure I don't look like I think I'm hot shit.

>>8402997

r u a literal baboon?

>>8400539
Don't listen to all those lads replying

It's absolutely normal and I experience it as well. It is a state where your brain is confused what exactly was reality, before reaffirming that THIS is reality

If you dreamed a scenario where you love some girl you've literally never met, you will wake up and feel that intense love for a while. Works with sadness and other emotions as well.

The moment you stand up, its gone.

>>8400539
>>8403809

There's nothing philosophically deep about brain tumors, gentlemen