So if we map and reconstruct human brain in virtual environment,

>>9113457
If you have two versions of the same person they'll begin having separate experiences and separate memories, but this doesn't make the artificial version any less legitimate than the original version. There's nothing missing that needs to be carried over from the original version to make the artificial one "real" if the brain's reconstructed in full. The idea of a continuity from moment to moment constituting a "self" doesn't really map to an actual thing in reality. That's what the Buddhist concept of anatman is about.

>>9113466
>There's nothing missing
Consider: niche construction.

>>9113466
>If you have two versions of the same person they'll begin having separate experiences and separate memories
Wrong because the universe is deterministic.

>>9113513
The universe being deterministic doesn't prevent two versions of the same person from having separate experiences and separate memories. The fact they'll be in two separate places and begin interacting with different external happenstances will make their experiences and memories different even though they themselves were identical to each other to begin with.

>>9113532
>The fact they'll be in two separate places and begin interacting with different external happenstances will make their experiences and memories different even though they themselves were identical to each other to begin with.
[citation needed]

>>9113533
If you're in London and someone makes an identical copy of you in Berlin, how exactly would both of you continue to have the same experiences and memories one week later? I'm pretty sure the Berlin you would have more memories of people speaking German around him for example.

>>9113543
How can an identical copy of you be in Berlin if you're in London?

They don't sound very identical

>>9113545
What? Are you trying to include location in space as part of your definition of "identical?" That's retarded. You can draw two identical circles in two different cities. Being in two different locations doesn't make those two things not identical.

>>9113552
>Are you trying to include location in space as part of your definition of "identical?"
What definition of identical are you using?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/identical

>Being the same
>Exactly equal and alike

>>9113554
>What definition of identical are you using?
The non-autistic one. Do you also complain when people use the phrase "identical twins?"

>>9113555
>Do you also complain when people use the phrase "identical twins?"
No because that has a precise definition and the word is used as an informal modifier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin
>Twins can be either monozygotic ("identical"), meaning that they develop from one zygote, which splits and forms two embryos

Or did you think jellyfish are fish because the word fish is in the name?

>>9113562
How exactly would an artificial version of you be "identical" by your inanely narrow definition of this word? You're saying the two versions of you can't be in different spatial locations and count as "identical." If you're both in the same spatial location, how would there even be two of you to begin with?

>>9113569
>How exactly would an artificial version of you be "identical" by your inanely narrow definition of this word? You're saying the two versions of you can't be in different spatial locations and count as "identical." If you're both in the same spatial location, how would there even be two of you to begin with?
An identical version of yourself is necessarily in a parallel universe in the set of multiverses. Thus you can both be in the same location.

>>9113573
"Identical" is relative. In your parallel universe example they still wouldn't be exactly the same because you could differentiate the two based on which universe they were in.
And for this topic, you can use "identical" in the sense of physical structure of both versions' bodies without requiring that both be located at the same exact coordinates in space. They would begin to diverge after the artificial version is created because they'd begin having different external events happen to them, but they would be physically identical to one another to begin with.

>>9113588
>In your parallel universe example they still wouldn't be exactly the same because you could differentiate the two based on which universe they were in.
Parallel universe are indistinguishable.

>>9113457
In a virtual environment it will be frozen. You would have to feed the system input of some kind and do delta time calculations.

>>9113594
You can distinguish them by their extra-dimensional location. The "parallel" part of "parallel universe" refers to how they're next to each other in a higher spatial dimension. Just as you could have two flat worlds parallel to each other in vertical space to where the flat people in each world aren't aware of the existence of the other, you would have two universes that are next to each other in 4D or 5D space (depending on if you're counting time as the fourth dimension).

>>9113620
>The "parallel" part of "parallel universe" refers to how they're next to each other in a higher spatial dimension.
Please don't speak about multiverses if you haven't taken any classes past high school math and physics.

>>9113639
Not an argument. Go watch a Carl Sagan video if you're having trouble understanding this. This "identical" semantics autism tangent doesn't have anything to do with the thread topic regardless. Replace "identical" with "having the same physical design but not the same location in 3D space" if it really bothers you that much.

>>9113653
>Go watch a Carl Sagan video if you're having trouble understanding this.
This is what I meant by

"Please don't speak about multiverses if you haven't taken any classes past high school math and physics."

Sagan youtube videos don't replace "actual" textbooks

>>9113660
I never claimed Carl Sagan videos replace high school math and physics textbooks. The level of misunderstanding you're having isn't sophisticated enough to even bother referring you to formal academic sources. You don't need to learn multivariate calculus, you just need to learn that parallel universes still have distinct locations from one another that can be used to differentiate between them.

>>9113710
>you just need to learn that parallel universes still have distinct locations from one another that can be used to differentiate between them.
For the second time, please refrain from posting about math or physics if you've only watched Sagan youtube videos.

You simply don't have the education to speak on these topics with anything more than a surface understanding at the pop-sci level.

>>9113712
Feel free to try making an actual argument any time.

>>9113727
You haven't made any points to argue against, just surface level misinterpretations from popsci Sagan youtube videos.

>>9113736
The claim you're trying to avoid making an argument for in case you forgot is that parallel universes wouldn't have distinct locations from one another.

>>9113742
It follows by definition, no argument needs to be made.

Which part of this confuses you?

>>9113752
>It follows by definition
Except it doesn't. The two universes each need to exist in distinct locations one way or another or else there wouldn't be two of them to begin with.

>>9113773
>Except it doesn't. The two universes each need to exist in distinct locations one way or another or else there wouldn't be two of them to begin with.
Your misinterpretation doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

Please read before ever posting again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

>>9113780
>complains about surface level popsci
>links to wikipedia
Anyway it's obvious you're being intellectually dishonest because this whole tangent started when you claimed a reconstructed person wouldn't have separate experiences and then tried to defend your bullshit by bringing up parallel universes when OP's topic clearly didn't have anything to do with that.

>>9113791
>this whole tangent started when you claimed a reconstructed person wouldn't have separate experiences and then tried to defend your bullshit by bringing up parallel universes when OP's topic clearly didn't have anything to do with that.
How are parallel universes not a virtual environment when the multiverse is a simulator?

>>9113795
How is that a coherent question?

>>9113801
>How is that a coherent question?

What part of it confuses you?

>>9113802
I'm not the one who's confused.

>>9113804
Then why don't you understand the coherent question?

How are parallel universes not a virtual environment when the multiverse is a simulator?

>>9113810
I understand your question isn't coherent.

>>9113815
Again, please read an actual book, (anything beyond popsci Sagan youtube videos, really) before attempting to discuss mathematics and physics.

You're (clearly) simply not equipped with the vocabulary, understanding or knowledge about any of the relevant topics.

>>9113818
Insinuating I didn't have a university education isn't going to make your incoherent question more coherent. If you really cared about understanding the bullshit you're flinging you would try phrasing your incoherent question in different words to show there's a real concept there and not just a retard word salad.

>>9113831
>Insinuating I didn't have a university education isn't going to make your incoherent question more coherent.
I'm not insinuating anything about whether you've been to a university or not, just whether you've ever learned any math or physics beyond popsci Sagan youtube videos.

>If you really cared about understanding the bullshit you're flinging you would try phrasing your incoherent question in different words to show there's a real concept there and not just a retard word salad.
They're all well-defined words that everyone working in the field is familiar with, your naivéty is not an excuse.

Shut it, dweebs

>>9113513
>the universe is deterministic
Get a load of this guy

>>9113457
It would be a perfect clone if it is perfectly reconstructed.