What are you? All your memories, desires, fears, plans. Your

you just played SOMA huh

if you believe in god, something something soul

if you don't, then yes, it would be 'you'. if your next question is why, my response would be to ask what difference there is in the you that falls asleep & loses stream of consciousness & the you that wakes up.

>>8418658
I'd say I'm this consciousness. Everything else, the whole personality aspect is just like clothing, you can strip it away and still be you.

File: 1474277538613.gif (1MB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x720px

>>8418667
What is it in the brain that would make me "wake up" though? Wouldn't a replica just be a 100% identical clone, while I as an individual never "come back"

A simplistic rephrasing I guess would be this: If I die in 10 seconds and slip into the darkness of nonexistence, will I ever "come back" and enter the light of awareness again, or will my family just get a remake that's indistinguishable?

>>8418712
what if you're everyone and just don't realize it?

>>8418712

i see your point but it's the same thing.

you fall asleep. you get hit by a car & lose consciousness for two weeks. you wake up. either scenario, you still claim to be you.

as far as we know, consciousness is a state of the synapses in your brain. the exact cells appear not to matter, & can die & be replaced without losing anything. if i replaced every neuron in my brain one by one with technological versions, would i still be me? if they were still running the same 'program' of chemical & electric signals, whatever that program was would probably claim to be me. we don't know, we can't do that yet. a lot of questions will probably be answered as technology marches closer to that point.

the point is this: it probably would be 'you'. if that sounds wrong, ask yourself if you lose anything by falling asleep.

as far as we know, you are a fragile, temporary state of programmed impulses

File: 1474086163782.jpg (51KB, 750x527px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 750x527px

>>8418728
That's an extremely comforting explanation, anon.

I have an unbased faith that one day however long from now, we'll be able to restore every 1 and 0 that ever existed and will have totally obsoleted the concept of loss and death. Like a scientific resurrection so to speak

>>8418728
We are all really similar to each other, I think there's very few exceptional or unique humans, who fucking cares about you and your meaningless memories.

>>8418719
This.

>>8418658
You're made of atoms and your memory like every other aspect of your brain uses chemicals to do anything.
Tl;DR No you wouldn't "wake up"

All those things make you what you are. Just because you happen to be mad of atoms doesnt change the fact that you are a concious, real being, it just makes it more amazing that matter can give way to life.

As for waking up 1,000 years in the future, it'll never happen. Your brain will be dust by that point unless the ziploc you

>>8418719
what if everyone is someone else, including yourself, and you're only deluding yourself into thinking you're in control?

File: IMG_3645.jpg (79KB, 625x796px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 625x796px

The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.

>>8418658

Souls exist. Anyway something beyond reality. The nature of consciousness, memory, imagination, are not physical. Yet consciousness, memory and imagination exist. It is not made of elementary particles, or made of energy since they are neither observable nor quantifiable.

>>8419194
>>8419181
Now this is shitposting

You are just a biological machine OP. If you build an exact replica of your computer, is it the same computer?

>>8418658
Don't know. Consider the following logical framework:
-You experience a you, this is obviously appears circular. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
-If you cut off one of your hands, you lose its inputs and its use. Part of you is now no longer there. There is less of your you now present, but the rest of you is composed of a recollection that there was once more of you.
-If you remove that recollection and create false recollections that eliminate the ability to reconstruct something is off, you would never know. You are malleable.
-You don't have veritable access to an accurate model of reality. Ever.
And lastly the important part, considering all of this, what happens if you cut your brain in half? What happens to "you"? Which side do you become, if either of them at all? If the communication of the system as a whole is divided, does this destroy you? Losing a part of you does not, dividing the system might.

You can further chip away at this by asking what happens to your consciousness if you cut out a piece of your brain, but keep it alive and sustained. Watch its internal functioning. What is it doing? What does it mean for it to be doing that? Feed it inputs, watch its outputs, etc.

Until we mechanically understand consciousness, this can't really be addressed. The philosophical dilemmas however likely never will be. The whole deconstruction and duplication deal. Theseus' ship and all that.

File: Victor Hugo.jpg (294KB, 1632x1092px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1632x1092px

>>8419208
>If you build an exact replica of your computer, is it the same computer?

Yes.

Are you retarded ?

>>8419227
Not if the original still exists.
;^)

>>8418658
>>8418728
>If you died and an exact replica was built in the future, down to your entire brain chemistry, would you "wake up" and be alive again? If not, why? Is consciousness itself just an irreplaceable illusion?
I hope to any mathfag here can agree that this is ridiculous.
-- Whatever makes up the universe might be unique which means two identical photons are not the same. However, maybe entangled states are somewhat type of equivalence. I'm not a physicist so am not so sure.
-- Any continuity in space-time breaks
-- Why would universe seek for such shitty equivalences. Ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

File: 0lBXFeW.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>8419249
>two identical photons are not the same

>>8419252
Your pepe is not enough of an argument here.

>>8419252
Yes. Two identical photons are obviously not the same photon.

>>8418658
You're a complex organic machine which consist of 100 approximately 100 billion neurons 100 trillion synapses. This central nervous system is supported by a complex network of nerves, and other organs which supply the body with energy.

Everything you're are experiencing is being simulated. The light of the words you're reading now is not 13 milliseconds old. Just now your brain which has been preconditioned to read text is comprehending otherwise incoherent markings on a computer screen. However, it is not actually light. It is a neurological representation of what light is, or how it can be perceived to interpret the stimuli and make rational decisions.

People with colorblindness have the inability to comprehend certain wavelengths - the deaf without sound; the blind without light. People whom were recently cured of an acute blindness were surprised to see that objects appeared smaller as they moved away from them.

Close your eyes. You can still feel things with touch? Hear the sounds around you? Yet part of the simulation is missing. Closing your eyes is like covering the camera lens, but the sound is till coming through.

Consciousness arise from matter, but is not the matter itself. It's a material system which can make decisions based on the ambient environment to eventually replicate and create more material systems which do the same. We are here becasue our most inherent function is survival.

File: 1472953527195.png (223KB, 496x495px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 496x495px

>>8419273
i like it

>>8419273
MAN
AS
MACHINE.

Even people who superficially agree with this often don't realize the full implication.

>>8419227
>Exact
What an intellectually lazy explanation. Consider this:

In a masterful world, you create two atomically identical computers. They are two totally separate systems and can accumulate different input. They may have the same heuristics, but will operate independent of one another. You can give them the same input, and they will operate the same, but are still physically separate.

Replicate this with human consciousness... same memories, initial neural networks, etc. However, if both brains are present in moving, roving humans bodies, they will slowly diverge. Both cannot experience the exact same perspective. If one dies, the other does not live on through its doppelganger.

>>8419281
But it doesn't serve to demean the human condition at all. Personally I think it's beautiful. The sun might outlive me by millions of years, but I've experience a trillion, trillion, trillion more variables that it ever will. I know of other stars like it, but it can never know. It can never be anything by a single chemical reaction coalesced by the most basic forces. The only thing more complex than an individual human brain is possible the universe itself.

>>8419302
frog posters
>star level intellect
>seemingly never die
>coalesced by the most basic forces of the internet

>>8419290
For them to be the "same" they would have to occupy the exact same place at the same time.

>>8419302
>But it doesn't serve to demean the human condition at all.
Never implied it did. And I'd agree.

>>8419312
Well, same with the connotation their physical makeup is identical on the molecular level - not so much that they occupy the same space. However, I get your point. Something cannot be separate, yet be totally same.

Ultimately, this just comes down to arguing imitation. One could approach exact sameness - replicating likeness - but never reach it without becoming same.

>>8419318
I know you didn't. It is for the benefit of anyone new to the idea.

>>8419290
If you input the same memory into both, they would be considerd the exact same computer down to the exact detail. More over, the way computers handle information is radically different from humans, specifically how human information intake, and individuality play off each other.

>>8419319
Sack of balls man, I'll tell ya.

File: think.jpg (55KB, 542x616px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 542x616px

How can you know that the you who woke up today is the same you from yesterday?

>>8419332
How can you know your entire notion of your present context, nature of your actions, and reality, isn't built on false or selectively removed memories?

How can you know you aren't a robot that was activated 15 minutes ago?

>>8419332
Well, roughly ever seven years your entire body is replaced with new cells. Of course, it doesn't happen all at one time. For instance, by the seventh year, your body will no longer contain any cells older than three years... there are some exceptions:
>neurons in the cerebral cortex
>fat cells can take a bit longer
>cardiomyocyte heart cells are replaced at a reduced rates
>large portions of your bone structure
BTW, dying of old age just means you heat cell replacement rate has dropped to zero.

>>8419342
gas lighting is not an acceptable argument

>>8419323
Of course, computer and the human brain work on different physical processes, but they are both computational systems. All thought is rational.
>chaos theory
Randomness is simply what we don't understand. What might seem like rational thought to the individual is mentally insane to the rest of society - such is the premise of many psychological thrillers.

File: 1476315855565.jpg (91KB, 398x476px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 398x476px

>>8419352
That's the way it works. You could be a sleeper agent, and you'd never know.

Deal with it.

>>8419358
However, in this exact moment only my perceived reality matters. People have vastly different simulations going on - their own reality. There is no objective reality and otherwise arguing that existential factors would prevent someone from experiencing what is entirely subjective is beside the point.

Even if I'm a metal robot, I am still experiencing the reality of a flesh and blood human. If I'm suddenly turned off, so what? The current experience makes any unlikely, possible exterior factors mote. Also, Occam's razor - the most likely explanation is the simplest model. Simpler models are easier to test, and therefore collecting evidence to substantiate them is likely. I could be a robot, but there's not way to test that, so I'll defer to something with logical evidence.

>>8419368
I'm just going to dive right into this loaded question.

The answer is: those two instances are non-scientific because of how they are psychological in nature. Hence, you can't make a conclusion until you know why those two people think the way they do.

Psychology isn't considered a science for a reason. There are too many variables to reproduce something without error or special considerations. It's like if gravity fluctuated depending on if the planet feels heavier or lighter.

>>8419368
Random chance. Genes are a product of evolution - and evolution is a crude process. Sometimes unwanted traits slip through the mesh. Sometimes what we perceive as unwanted used to be wanted.
Looking internally, ADHD - commonly though of as a disability, but research indicated otherwise. Scientists surveyed some of the few hunter-gatherer cultures still left in the world and found tribal members with ADHD were not only better fed compared to others, but they also lived longer. The restless nature and need to analyze everything means people with ADHD are natural hunters. They fiddle with things, and need to keep doing something - likely some of the first tools invented were by the mental ancestors of those with ADHD. However, in the ridged modern world, where you're forced to sit in one place and do work... the lack of attention is a disability.

>>8419374
>There is no objective reality
Matter of opinion. I'd say the information available implies otherwise.

Your entire reasoning process is screwed up because you're trying to cling to what you want to be true, the intuitive and the familiar. Just say it to yourself "I don't know. I can't know." Understand it, accept it, and move on. Because that's how it really is.

You're otherwise missing the point of what I'm saying. Though you start to come around near the end with:
>Occam's razor
Which is an attempt at error control and correction, and a part of a broader set of heuristics. It alone however doesn't yield a viable epistemological framework. One must realize that truth is relative, and all elements of their logical framework are inherently uncertain and thus must be weighted by probability while controlling for known and known unknown sources of error. At such a point it is obvious that false, or absent, underpinnings can yield drastically distorted higher level comprehension.

Ask yourself what you're doing right now, and why. Ask yourself how you know, and try to identify ways that contextual and predictive model can be skewed. The reason I'm responding to you is because we're both actually on the same page, and I want to know why you aren't quite admitting it.

>>8419394
oh, shit i read something like that once, except is was about autists. Because they have a tendency to repeat things verbally, so it is likely early language was invented by autistic caveman.

>>8418712

>What is it in the brain that would make me "wake up" though?

Absolutely nothing in the brain makes "you" from yesterday turn into you today. What "you" have today are memories that make "you" abstract out a sense of shared identity with "you" from yesterday. The continuity isn't a real / physical thing. What really exists is just the belief in continuity. So when the remake wakes up, it'd believe it teleported into the future from "your" last dying moment, but that's all it would be is a belief. Which is not any different from what happens to "you" already every moment. Shared identity is an imaginary story about bodies in time, not a physical reality about them. Nothing is tying it all together in a way that the remake wouldn't have. The remake and the original are equally lacking in continuity between moments.

>>8419374
There can be no complete idea of objective reality, because of the infinite potential to learn.

However, objective reality does exist. It is self evident and exists because it exists. If a tree falls on a uninhabited island it stillmakes a sound, even if no one is there to hear it.

File: MjAxMy00NGM1OGE5NjM0MWRkMmYw.png (51KB, 420x294px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 420x294px

>>8418658
There are countless perfectly identical hydrogen atoms in the universe, yet what happens to one has no effect on the others.

There are countless of perfectly identical buckyballs in the universe, but what happens to one has no effect on the others.

There are millions of perfectly identical Play Station 4's in the world, yet what happens to one doesn't affect the others.

...Barring quantum entanglement or networking, of course...

So what makes you think you're going to wake up after death, simply because an object identical you appears in some distant future beyond your death?

Now, such a mechanism might be useful for extending your will beyond your death, by simulating you, should people be interested in what your will would have been, were you still alive. But it's still not you. Further, as you describe it, there's no chain to even connect the two of you. Like all other duplicate objects in the universe, you are still two separate objects.

Unless you believe in some sort of magical soul, that's constantly seeking out a vessel that's "just like you", and some how suspends all its activity while you are dead, waiting for just the right host - who, presumably, is in better condition than the one it was in when you died, and thus it seems even similarity isn't an issue, so much as some strange ill defined seeking of material identity, throughout all of time and space.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-17 at 11.48.06 PM.png (31KB, 675x171px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 675x171px

oi lads help me I cant get it

>tfw brainlet
no bully

>>8419396
>double slit experiment
Sorry, but this objective reality you speak of can't be 'see' by any current model.

>>8419403
Actually, you are quantumly connected to yourself throughout time. You aren't dissembled and reassembled from new atoms, moment to moment. Your metabolism will eventually replace most of your matter, but the new matter is integrated into this same entanglement, in a Ship of Theseus pattern. Identity maybe malleable, but the chain of events is not.

But a new body, identical to yours, built from other materials elsewhere and elsewhen, has no such entanglement, no such connection. It isn't a continuation but a duplication. It thus has its own consciousness, separate from yours, whether you're still in existence or not, regardless of how identical it is.

>>8419431

>you are quantumly connected to yourself throughout time

That's not true.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009v2.pdf

>We find that the decoherence timescale s ( ∼ 10 −13 − 10 −20 seconds) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales ( ∼ 10 − 3 − 10 − 1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

Also RE:

>You aren't dissembled and reassembled from new atoms, moment to moment.

"You" aren't dissembled because there was never any "you" assembled in the first place.

>>8418658
watch out, don't get too mindfucked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxBOBWLAn2Y

>>8419452
While I wasn't speaking of your experience, but your material body, your experience is connected as well. There maybe a delay between the sensation and experience, but the chain of events that creates that experience is still intact and continuous.

If you are rendered temporarily unconscious, there's still no break in the material world of that which retains that pattern between the time it is rendered unconscious and the time it is awakened.

But, in OP's scenario, there's no such connection between that chain of events and chain of experience.

>>8418658
>if an exact replica of your mind was built after you die, would you wake up?
No, but an exact replica of your last state would. That's like saying an exact replica of you would share your perceptions. Just the act of being separate would cause a divergence and thus you would become "different" people.

I think "youness" can be attributed to yiur unique brain and your memories. If you change the memories enough, the oerson changes, look at severe amnesia cases. Amd if you change the brain chemistry enough, you change the person. That person has no sense of lost self, but their previous "version" is gone. The "you" from yesterday is dead. You getting that feeling of "youness" from your memories.

>>8419467
Sorry for the awful spelling. Phoneposter.

>>8419467

>You getting that feeling of "youness" from your memories.

^^^This exactly. The remake premise is a distraction from the lack of reality that "youness" has in everyday life. Most people seem to want to call everyday life "youness" a real thing and the remake's "youness" fake, but both are equally just informed abstractions based on memories. "You" wouldn't teleport to the future, but "you" never teleport from moment to moment in the first place. Each moment is sitting there with memories that give it the sense of having come from the past, but the belief in having come from there isn't the same as the actuality of "selves" travelling through time.

>>8419208
Lol Sagan called us molecular machines and you say a quote by him is shitposting? We ARE a means for the universe to know itself nigger. No mysticism is required for that to be true.

>>8419479
And I think that scares people because they think self awareness and a sense of "you" are mutually exclusive, they are not.

>>8419479
The sense of "youness" (are we really using this term?) may come from memory, but there's more to that consistency of experience than memory. There's a chain of events that ties all the past interactions of that object of "you" to the present you. Your consciousness may change from moment to moment, but it is not freshly recreated, moment to moment - there's a chain of events that leads to the changes and its current state.

A perfect recreation with no such connection. It may believe it shares that chain, but if the original object still exists, it'll inform the duplicate of its mistake as soon as it catches its duplicate trying to fuck its girlfriend.

There are thus two separate conscious and aware beings at play, possession being 9/10ths of the law and all. This remains true even if the two are separated by time and the original is no longer around to inform the duplicate of its status.

>>8419483
>[people think] self awareness and a sense of "you" are mutually exclusive
Wut? I think most people would assume they aren't - and many would further believe they require one another, thus the exact opposite... Although maybe that's what you meant.

I'd say take this to >>>/his/, as this is really philosophy - but they just deleted a transhumanism thread there, so meh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4

BTFO

>>8419501

I disagree. Being part of a "chain" of events just means being next to other moments along the axis of time. A rock doesn't share in an identity with other rocks just because you line them up next to each other in space.

>>8419512
Omitting consciousness and experience from the equation, and going back to basic set theory, the chain of events that placed that rock in that particular position in that line, differentiates it from the other rocks in the line, as well as rocks not in the line. This remains true even if all the rocks in question are exact duplicates of one another, or, if at a later time, one rock should be in the exact position of a previous rock that has been moved aside so it can be so.

Granted, one may eventually lose track of which rock is which, but it doesn't change the fact that each rock is its own unique object, with its own history of position and interaction.

Where does the energy which controls "free" will come from?

Where do the most fundamental laws of the universe originate from? And why?

File: 1474047314018.jpg (45KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 657x527px

Eat a Snickers. You're not you when you're hungry.

>>8419520
>Where does the energy which controls "free" will come from?
I wrote a story that eventually came to include this. Ultimately, as far as the context of the story went, only one person came to have something resembling "true(er)" free will.

The idea likely stemmed from a book from the 50's I read. About the origin of a given universe's "big bang" initiation, and a given universe not being strictly self contained. These kids find this object, it displays some form of consciousness, it can be used for seemingly infinite energy (but a finite draw per given interval of time), very old alien species want it, it's difficult to contain, and it gradually demonstrates that it can ignore certain aspects of the laws of physics. They realize it was only pretending to be acted on by gravity, or various fields, and acting out what they expected.

>>8419257
>making assumptions based on nothing but your flawed intuition

>>8419520
>Where do the most fundamental laws of the universe originate from? And why?
An endless chain of inevitable causes and effects dating back to the dawn of time.

>Where does the energy which controls "free" will come from?
A lack of omniscience to perceive that endless chain of past causes and effects, as well as to predict all their inevitable outcomes.

Only the gods lack free will.

>>8419532
Can you remember the book?

>>8419518

There's a difference between identifying an attribute that the original and the remake don't share vs. arguing why that attribute would actually confer sameness between the rocks in the first line but not between them and the rocks in the second line. I think you've done the former but not the latter. I agree that you can differentiate between the original and the remake (or the first line of rocks and the second) by referencing position. I disagree that the situation of rocks being near each other in the first line or the situation of moments being near each other in the original timeline would give either the line of rocks or the original timeline of moments a shared identity. The belief in shared identity is still a physical non-real abstraction of language based on memory. The remake wouldn't have it with the original, the remake wouldn't have it from moment to moment in its own timeline, and the original wouldn't have it from moment to moment in its own timeline. In all cases there would just be memories and beliefs / abstractions inferred from those memories. No teleportation of "consciousness" either from moment to moment or from original to remake is required to explain how that would work.

>>8419542
Not right now. I vaguely remember where it might be (different location than I am now), and I remember the cover. Check back tomorrow, I'll post if I find it.

>>8419397
maybe your monumental force of autism can take humanity into a new era of communication

>>8419545
I've a feeling we're just agreeing with each other in an argumentative fashion...

I mean, if I take two Nintendo 64s, copy a memory card with save point, and launch them at the same time loading that same save point for the same game - they maybe having the same "experience", but they don't suddenly become the same Nintendo. The same is true if I repeat the procedure for each Nintendo, decades apart, or after one or the other has been destroyed.

Thus, there's no reason to assume consciousness would "jump" from one being to another, simply because they were perfect copies of one another, and one had been destroyed (as it certainly wouldn't happen if both existed at the same time). They are still two separate systems, and only operating from the same data. Unlike a single being that has changed throughout time, they've no causal relation to one another.

>>8419524

Thanks anon I havent laughed that hard in a long time.

>>8419208

Yes.

Stop being a dumbass anon.

Jesus Christ

File: Elizabeth_Montgomery_1959.jpg (15KB, 220x283px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x283px

Maybe consciousness is an evolution, rather than a tangible "instant" thing. If you were thrown onto a robot colony on Mars the day after you were born, for example, you'd never realize you were ever born or were ever a baby. Even seeing a baby later may frighten you, because "you" were just a little bowl of ingredients as a baby, no memory or self awareness beyond impulses.

Now you're totally different, you have a sense of self, history, future, humor. You're refined and "created" now. Maybe THAT is all consciousness really is.

It's frightening because that means all cloning, replica making that may eventually go on, is a grand delusion for our own comfort, that it DOES create independent consciousness trapped in the life and body of whoever it's a clone of, and more importantly that YOU specifically, remain dead.

Pushing further into the near-fiction future: time travel. The way I see it, time travel and harvesting is the only sure way "you" and "I" will be coming back. For example if we have a machine scan history and make little 'save' stops at every human death, we could transport (NOT copy/clone) every individual to the future totally aware and conscious when they wake up an instant after their past death, in perfect health. The "copy" that isn't really "you" could be left in the position of you in the past.

After this scan and transport, everyone who's ever existed would be alive and well, and it would feel like closing your eyes at death, and then immediately opening them again. Very pleasant, very respectful.

Of course this is just armchair science, we have no way to be certain consciousness is even an illusion, it may be some actual tangible thing.

Devouring you? Well try this postulate.
Quantum entanglement. Take 2 particles, move them apart. The direction of spin of one can be deduce by observing the other. However, the second particle is not the one you started with. And neither is the first one.

At a base level, we are made up of particles. These particles are flipping around all over the place. Bearing in min that 'you' are the sum of the information encoded in the conglomerate of these particles - who is to know who the 'you' that is 'you' now is?

I hope this helps?

Moving on from this, i postulate that 'love', 'connections', emotions etc are explained by certain conglomerations of particles experiencing electro-gravitic attraction to other selective conglomerations.

These (for example, can be anyone/thing) man/woman conglomeration of paricles experience attraction in various degrees depending on the flow/swap of particles between them hence the expressions "he/she/it makes me feel whole" and the sense of loss felt when a particle partner dies or leaves.

This is who we are, this is how we fit with the world. its a shame some particle conglomerations are psychopathic bastards hey?

>>8418658
>If you died and an exact replica was built in the future, down to your entire brain chemistry, would you "wake up" and be alive again?
I think "I" would die the moment my brain permanently stops functioning, the replica would just be a copy. I can't explain why I feel like this though.

>>8419895
>Love causes quantum entanglement.
Oh to be young again...

>>8419903
More like "to be stupid again(?)".

>>8419907
Shhh... Let him dream.

>>8418658
fyi materialism is false so that'll be a good start

>>8419903
No. Love is maybe the movement of particles between organisations (where organisations are any living thing)

File: sho_fuzzy_wuvvy.jpg (160KB, 850x1134px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 850x1134px

>>8420010

File: download.jpg (4KB, 318x159px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 318x159px

>>8419347
>fat cells can take a bit longer
>mfw

>>8420034
>>8420010
Fuck off with your trolling, and come up with some ideas.
It is fine being 'specialised' but any theory has to replicate across all observable life.

You instinctively know NOW that the table your notebook is sitting on is a collection of atoms, broken down ad infinitum.

Well so are you. OP aske a question, the question was, "what are you". Well no one has bothered to try answer that yet.

YOU yes YOU are a collection of particles that do NOT stay in one position in space and time. So who the fuck are you lad?

I will tell you.. you are the sum of MANY human beings, as derived from th loss and acquisition of particles. Yo are the sum of the people you meet and the experiences yo have.

There IS NO YOU.

YOU do not exist, you are ever changing. The 'bits' that make up you are swapping around all the time. Coherence is maintained by a form of conglomerational inertia.

Good luck with that phuq bois.

File: 1476339712452.png (754KB, 811x571px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 811x571px

>>8418658
>think about a flying lawn mower

I use airplane fuel in my lawnmower

>>8418658
For the replica it'll be me like it teleported into the future and suddenly feels healthier maybe even younger if the same memorize are preserved.

For you it'll be just the end at that point in time when your brain shut down.

>>8420054
>You is ever changing therefore it doesn't exit! So deep!

No.

There's a series of events and, as you said, a resulting coherence of inertia. These can be traced through time, and allow both you, and those outside of you, to recognize you, as you, however amorphous and ever-changing that identity or form maybe, every change it experiences is a result of cause and effect that can be chained to it.

A quasar maybe an ever changing object of infinite chaos at its core, but it until it burns out or evaporates, it remains a quasar, and further, it remains a particular quasar. The object that is you is a hell of a lot less chaotic.

But a duplicate object, created in another place, and another time, from another set of materials, has no such chain of connection to the original. It is thus, not you.

>>8420117
Objectively correct. Thats what makes 'us' all work. However, at the fundamental level, every single particle that is you is swapped for a new particle instantaneously all the time.

I do wonder how we hold it all together sometimes (bad joke).

>>8420117
And, your perceptions of others are based on your conglomerational inertia. How often have you seen people just 'change' personality. You can never know people. They ae being swapped out all the time.

Incidentally, if it was possible to take each single particle, together with its information and reassemble them, no they would not be a copy (obviously) but it would work (in theory) never happen obviously.

>>8420611
>How often have you seen people just 'change' personality.
Like I said, the constant state changes of the system do not eliminate the consistency of its existence as a point of interaction. Every change in the system is ultimately traceably chained to the system's existence.

>take each single particle, together with its information and reassemble them
If you take the existing mass and change its configuration while retaining an ability to restore its functionality, you can argue it's the same object - but that's simple cryogenics - or the Star Trek "matter transfer beam" scenario, which, arguably, is simply an extreme and temporary state change (provided it is of the type that breaks you down to energy and reassembles you elsewhere, and not the type that makes a copy elsewhere with unconnected energy).

This, however, is also not what OP is describing.