"Orginal"...
9
posts
"If we develop technology to clone a person and transfer memories and consciousness to the clone, wouldn't they be the same person?"
Until the very instant of consciousness between the original and the duplicate anyway. Realizing you're A or B can alter the behavior of both A and B from each other, and they'd likely enact different destinies from there on. From the differences in experiences and perceptions between them they'd cease being the same overtime more and more.
If you pulled a scenario where you had a duplicate made elsewhere while the original dies however, it's not too different from re-imagining the concept of teleportation.
"The line between "copy" and "original" is pretty blurred."
It's purely perception-based. When the ignorance of their origin is extinguished, how they'll respond changes from them observing themselves.
I heard once about a law that states: If the copy and orginal is exactly the same, then the copy is the orginal.
That's not how laws work but whatever.
Sure 123 is the exact same as 123 it does not mater which one came first. I don't think this is a very controversial topic, most people agree.
I happened to think of something while reading in the Time Machine thread... Some seem to think there can only be one instance of any one object, but is this necessarily true? I heard once about a law that states: If the copy and orginal is exactly the same, then the copy is the orginal.
If we develop technology to clone a person and transfer memories and consciousness to the clone, wouldn't they be the same person? At least one could say they would be two instances of the same person. So what's the difference really? Only that the original came first. In practice this would make little difference however. Lets say they do this with a man and then switches him. His wife and children would never know he wasn't the same person. He wouldn't know it himself either. So it really makes no difference.
The line between "copy" and "original" is pretty blurred. If you don't think it is like this I can give you an everyday example. You have a cell phone you bought recently that you like a lot. In some cases people even have an emotional atfachment to their things, and perhaps you do to. One day your phone stops working, and it gets replaced by a brand new one of the same make and model. How is this different from the first cell phone when it was working? It looks and works exactly the same, and for all intents and purposes, it is the same.
What I wrote is probably not original, but I have noticed different people come up with the same things. I have had "orginial" ideas only to find that someone else came up with it long ago. With some of these things though, I've found like only one other person who has written about it. In some cases even the wording is the same. This is about things that to me at least are important.
" Until the very instant of consciousness between the original and the duplicate anyway. Realizing you're A or B can alter the behavior of both A and B from each other, and they'd likely enact different destinies from there on. From the differences in experiences and perceptions between them they'd cease being the same overtime more and more."
They would, just like twins. If the orginal was removed and the clone didn't know he was a clone however... Then he would live out his life without him or anyone else knowing he wasn't the original.
"If you pulled a scenario where you had a duplicate made elsewhere while the original dies however, it's not too different from re-imagining the concept of teleportation."
But if both exist at the same time, then they are two instances of the same person. At least att some point they are.
"It's purely perception-based. When the ignorance of their origin is extinguished, how they'll respond changes from them observing themselves."
Yes, but we can take this deeper. They say that in a grown person every atom in his or her body has been exchanged over time. He or she is "the same" because of experiences, memories and that the cells were replicated according to the pattern in the DNA. There is also the continuity of existence. From another point of view it can be claimed the person is not the same one he/she was as a baby.
by StormI happened to think of something while reading in the Time Machine thread... Some seem to think there can only be one instance of any one object, but is this necessarily true? I heard once about a law that states: If the copy and orginal is exactly the same, then the copy is the orginal.
If we develop technology to clone a person and transfer memories and consciousness to the clone, wouldn't they be the same person? At least one could say they would be two instances of the same person. So what's the difference really? Only that the original came first. In practice this would make little difference however. Lets say they do this with a man and then switches him. His wife and children would never know he wasn't the same person. He wouldn't know it himself either. So it really makes no difference.
The line between "copy" and "original" is pretty blurred. If you don't think it is like this I can give you an everyday example. You have a cell phone you bought recently that you like a lot. In some cases people even have an emotional atfachment to their things, and perhaps you do to. One day your phone stops working, and it gets replaced by a brand new one of the same make and model. How is this different from the first cell phone when it was working? It looks and works exactly the same, and for all intents and purposes, it is the same.
Hm. If you got cloned the way you described, and met with your clone, you'd know you're not the same person. I don't get how identical would mean the same, even if switching them doesn't make a difference. "For all intents and purposes" maybe, but physically they are distinct. Whether the phones serve the same purposes or not depends on you, not on them, so drawing conclusions regarding their nature doesn't make much sense to me.
9
posts