I think this is one of the most important unanswered philosophical questions at this time. Are you right now and you in a minute from now identical, apart from whatever experiences you may have made in this minute? (A) Is there something which identifies you as a distinct human being which is preserved over time?
You could for example imagine a duplication machine which copies every particle and all of it’s properties of an object and creates a new object with these particles which will be identical to the first object. (Let’s just assume this were scientifically possible (B) – which we don’t know of course – and we had the technology to do so – which we don’t have). After the process you have no way of identifying which one of the resulting objects is the copy and which one is the original. If you were to copy your body in this machine, the question would be whether (1) one of the resulting objects is you and one is a copy, or whether (2) both of the resulting objects are identical to each other and the original you. Whose thoughts would -you- be thinking then after the process finishes?
If (1) were true this question would be easy to answer of course: The original you will continue to exists in the original body and a new identity will be created and placed into the copied body. In this case we wouldn’t conform to premise (B) though since the two objects wouldn’t be completely identical. Therefore it would be impossible to actually duplicate a human, since duplication cannot be done with a human being who has property (A).
If (2) were true though, would the question even be valid? What is the definition of -you- then? Since there is no “original” and no “copy” there would actually be 2 identical “yous” with none of them having a special kind of connection to the original human being before the duplication process. In this case human beings don’t have something like (A) and the question “Whose thoughts would -you- be thinking then after the process finishes?” is invalid.
It is obvious that (1) would be the easier answer to the question (this is not to be used as an argument for or against this option), since science itself would prohibit the duplication of a human being. And as long as no scientist duplicates a human being this option is totally possible. The opposition to this option would be that we have no indication yet that such a duplication is actually impossible. (2) is the more difficult option (this is not to be used as an argument as well), since you would have to question your own identity. -You- don’t exist. Only your body exists as a group of interacting particles. The question is whether and how this group of particles can create something which you call a consciousness, the feeling of self-awareness and the possibility for you to think and make decisions. Consciousness is not something which science has fully or even mostly understood. There are many different branches of science which try to answer this question – (neuro-)psychology, philosophy, biology etc – but none of them have yet made an explanation to what a consciousness actually is.
So which one of (1) or (2) do you think is true and why?
If you have naive prejudices against particular groups of people don’t read beyond this point.
Some of you will realize that what is described in (A) may also be called a soul. And option (1) is probably what a religious person would assume to be true, option (2) is what nihilists would select. I’m not mentioning this earlier because I know some people who read the word ‘religion’ immediately oppose the proposition which is made and only after that they look for arguments to support their already biased point of view. The same can be said about some people who read the word ‘nihilist’ and immediately oppose their point of view. If you call yourself intelligent you will try answering these questions without using stupid and naive prejudices against either of these groups. And don’t misunderstand this; if you say (1) is true this does not necessarily mean you are religious, neither does selecting (2) mean you are a nihilist.
Also my personal opinion on this matter: I wish (1) were true, but I assume and fear (2) is true.
13 comments
This reminds me of the paradox where a ship is slowly replaced with new parts, untill all of the old parts are replaced and reassembled off to the side of the new ship that was built – from the old ship? With two ships, which is which?
Then again that doesn’t really answer your question. I believe the phenomenon you are describing is known as growth. No, I don’t know, no one does, what kind of answer were you expecting to get from this?
I know science doesn’t know the answer to this question, I was just hoping for your personal opinions, no matter if they are wrong or right.
who would want to be duplicated other than the most egotistical individuals
The morality of human duplication really doesn’t have an influence on the answer of this question, it’s just a thought experiment. Actually it the exact opposite: The answer to this question has an influence on morality (not only of human duplication).
I started out in the direction of dissecting the meaning and value of the word “bias,” but somehow ended up on a cannabis rant…
And i really wanted to read the whole thing attentively, but i just couldn’t.
So… no, technically, if you want to split hairs, we are not molecularly “identical,” if any of our particles change… which they are always doing.
However, there is an innate sort of “binding,” if you will, which stems from DNA sequences, combined with environmental conditions, which keeps all of MY cells in/on/of “me,” just due to how terrestrial biology works…
So the only thing making me “me,” is my consciousness… which seems (scientifically) generated by our physical materials while they remain in operable conditions, within an age-range in which our natural regenerative properties have not yet dwindled enough to become incapable of self-sustenance.
There is nothing observable that would suggest that any part of “my” consciousness, would be accessible to me, even if it were precisely duplicated through a cloning process.
Each clone, while genetically identical (meaning the DNA is the same, even if the feature manifestations differ), would be its own separate entity, and should be entitled to the same rights as any other (natural) human being. Clones might actually end up needing some kind of special rights considerations, simply due to their being clones, instead of natural native humans.
Cloning me wouldn’t give me a second body and brain to command; therefore separate entities.
I would still be me after the clone was made; cloning me doesn’t make me also the clone, it makes another one of whatever is generating my consciousness… and that other one produces its own consciousness, which is not “mine,” but would most likely be nearly identical to the functionality and capability of my consciousness, though it would think its own thoughts… and while i might often be able to guess what it’s thinking (mostly due to being genetically identical, and having 3 decades of experience of knowing myself, my thoughts, my own body…), or read its body language better than anyone else ever could… it would still be another separate person, another self-owned entity, with its own “life…” just almost identical to the original me.
So: “if you cloned me, whose thoughts would i be thinking?” Seems like a pretty irrelevant, if ridiculous question. 😉
The answer: “i would be thinking my own thoughts, not the thoughts of someone else (even if they are genetically identical, they are experiencing life in a different position in spacetime… experiencing a different path and structure through phase space… making its own decisions, feeling its own stimuli with its own receptors…).
It’s extremely unlikely that any two beings are ever thinking “scientifically identical thoughts,” and at the same time. It’s also extremely unlikely that anyone who currently exists, knows how to tap into the latent and underlying “lost art” of reading other people’s minds, and in such a way that can be verified by science.
Science has proven that we can do some pretty amazing shit, in ways lots of people would never have otherwise believed…
But i’m pretty sure a clone would have its own separate consciousness, as if a single consciousness “forked” and went in two separate directions, but without either branch having left behind any part of itself.
Protip: a fresh clone would have almost no body coordination, and while the brain would “know” how to say/do things, the nerve pathways and muscle memories would not have been developed, even if the “code” for those developments, carried over from the origin host, transfers intact. The learning process of a clone, coming to terms with its sudden adult existence, would vastly differ from the gradual and cumulative experience of being born as the original, from infant, developing to and through adulthood. That factor, alone, would destroy most indications of near-identical similarity… and then there’s the free will factor as well: what would the newly-learned clone want? What would the same genes, but with vastly different development, manifest?
For insight into this issue, look at plants.
I’m almost certain that plants and animals came from the same source… but i cannot “prove” that, because the great flaw of science is also it’s greatest strength: precision is king. If you can’t replicate precisely the conditions required for proof… then you’re not supposed to call it “proof.”
Once again, the issue is that the point is being missed, in favor of over-focusing on the wrong aspects. Science is all about figuring out what’s actually happening, and using reason and logic to make educated estimations about the stuff we can’t properly test.
Oh, and… that whole thing about the word “religion,” you’re right. People get bunched panties at the mere mention of certain words; even i, myself, will admit that “religion” (in its literal sense), is not necessarily about Theism.
And actually, if you think about it, i could say that Cannabis “is my religion,” and that’s not the slightest bit bizarre. Religion doesn’t have to have anything to do with believing in a creator. But, like many words misused by many people, “religion” has become incorrectly synonymous with “Theism.”
I prefer to make the distinction, but i’ve found that i’ve encountered far too many people who use those words interchangeably… and it just makes an already difficult situation even more difficult (explaining things to people who A) don’t want to listen, or B) can’t understand, even though they’re trying). I find that the only solution to this problem, is to not solve it! Just use the right word for the right purpose/context; if the audience isn’t even going to bother to learn its own language sufficiently, then is it really worth the effort of trying to explain something they don’t even care enough to enable themselves to understand? Probably not. But when “those people” are overwhelming the planet, it’s tempting to start shouting things most people won’t understand.
That’s sounds like what I imagined when I wrote about (2), although I didn’t mean to write that “one consciousness is controlling both bodies”. I’m thinking about what the consequences of this are: If for example before the cloning happens you commit a crime, who will you punish afterwards? I mean, both you and the clone think they are the original you, both are identical to the original you (not somehow identical atoms of course but different atoms with the same properties), but only “the atoms of the original body” committed the crime.
That makes me think about whether particles can be said to be “identical over time” at all. If you take a particle and look at it now and in a minute, is it the same particle? Or is it merely a particle of the same type with the same properties? Or does this even matter? I mean time is just another dimension, you don’t say two particles that are displaced from each other in a space dimension are identical; they are two different particles. Why are they identical if they are only displaced in the time dimension, but not the space dimensions?
“we are not merely our particles, but also the various properties, phenomena and extended results of all our actions.”
Well, without a soul all your various properties and experiences are manifested in your brain which itself only consists of particles. So if you were to clone all particles you would also clone all your properties and experiences by which your character is defined.
“Also, from what i understand, it takes a human adult about 10 years to completely replace ALL of the cells in their entire body”
You’re right I didn’t think about that yet. If you define the ‘you’ after 10 years a clone of the ‘you’ before 10 years, the original ‘you’ before 10 years doesn’t exist anymore. So you would have to define -you- as whatever is passed on in the manifestation of yourself in your body’s particles.
Oops! Clicked the wrong reply button. <.<
Another distinction i was trying to make (which i suppose deviates from your conditions…), is that while the physical materials may be identically replicated, the fresh consciousness, the fresh “life,” the New Entity, even in possession of sufficiently strong muscles… is not going to be skilled at using its own body, at first, because it does not have “work” added to its experiences; it merely has copied memories of actions it has never actually done. It would be as if all of your “memories” were actually “just dreams,” and never actually happened… to you… even though, as a clone, you’d have the best possible “second-hand” understanding of the original’s experience of those events.
In simpler terms: the clone needs to learn how to pilot its own body, even if in possession of capable muscles and replica memories. Expecting a fresh clone to already be as skilled as the original, is almost like if i said: “google exists; you should already know everything!” I might be able to access all digitized information… but i would have to practice the usage of said information, in order to wield it.
also forgot to mention:
This is getting into the “the chair isn’t really a chair, because you learned that wood particles have space between them” territory.
The chair is a chair, whether we know about the space between the wood particles, or not.
The clone is “a clone.” The original is “the original.”
Part of what makes us who we are, is the things we’ve experienced (nurture); we are not merely our particles, but also the various properties, phenomena and extended results of all our actions.
We are:
1) what we are
2) when we are
3) where we are
4) all we do, and everyone/thing affected by our actions/inactions
Some might even say that we “are why we are.” We are our own self-fulfilling prophecy… our own “vicious cycle”… we are, both all of us, and each of us, our own unique purpose.
When i say “me,” i’m actually also including all of the millions of microbes who reside among my flesh. (you/we all have them!)
Also, from what i understand, it takes a human adult about 10 years to completely replace ALL of the cells in their entire body… so, technically, none of us are “all original” anymore. You might even say we are all clones of ourselves! (it’s just that the cloning happens at the cellular level, and maintains a single whole unit, rather than using those cellular reproduction capabilities to create a separate branch… which we could totally do, if only we could completely map everything, including brain and CNS function…)
You know what? If evolution is “smart,” i have a feeling humans will eventually evolve some sort of natural self-cloning mechanism. We already have regenerative properties… we could probably tweak the human body to live 300+ years, if we really wanted (some of us do really want to do that, but “TPTB” simply cause far too much obstruction to the leaps and bounds of progress we could otherwise achieve).
“Well, without a soul all your various properties and experiences are manifested in your brain which itself only consists of particles.”
Not just my brain, but all the brains of anyone who has ever known me, or has ever been significantly affected by any of my actions! (that’s a lot of brains… some of them don’t even know i exist!)
And i think we’re onto something here: lots of terminology needs to be precisely defined, before such complex notions can be expected to be sufficiently communicated.
And we can’t even really define what “me” is… so it’s lookin’ like a lost cause, for now. 😉
(if you don’t know who to punish, you have two choices: 1) punish everyone, 2) punish no one… and i think that in the case of deciding whether or not to harm someone, i think we have to have some degree of certainty that we are indeed punishing the correct person, for the correct and justified reason, and with an appropriate penalty… or refrain from punishing anyone at all…)
“Another distinction i was trying to make (which i suppose deviates from your conditions…), is that while the physical materials may be identically replicated, the fresh consciousness, the fresh “life,” the New Entity, even in possession of sufficiently strong muscles… is not going to be skilled at using its own body, at first, because it does not have “work” added to its experiences”
I see what you are pointing at, but what you are describing as “work” or “practice” has to be manifested somewhere in the particles in your body. Otherwise we’re talking about metaphysical objects like a soul where stuff like this is manifested. So if you were to copy exactly every particle and all their properties of your body, the new body would also have the “work” and “practice” manifested in itself already, so it wouldn’t have to practice how to use his muscles like a newborn child, because the “practice” as a manifestation of neuronal connections in your brain is cloned like everything else.
you wouldn’t be able to copy all of the nurture i’ve put into my particles; only their “blueprint.”
Think of a solid state drive, and how information is literally stored in “switches.” Each switch is “I/O,” and various forms of data are recorded as various lengths and patterns of flipped and unflipped switches.
If you cloned a drive, you’re not actually making a 2nd drive, you’re duplicating the data signature, to apply an exact copy of that data to a separate device.
A human would be sort of the opposite: you’d be cloning the drive itself, but in so doing, would not be able to also keep all the “states” represented by all the various configurations of flipped and non-flipped bit-switches.
You’d have to copy both the DNA, And everything that has been added to the manifestation of the original DNA… the latter of which i’m quite certain would be impossible. But i do think we can/could-eventually clone humans, just not “identities.”
Even with the memories, even with a… disembodied and unpracticed understanding of the practical experiences… it would have to learn its own skin.
And here’s another thought: what about non-genetic permanent damage to the original?
Are you cloning an exact replica, damage and all?
Or are you cloning an improved version of me, from my DNA, by producing an undamaged version of my body, from the same genetics? If we’re copying only my genetics, the clone would have potential to be vastly superior to myself, due to having knowledge of important lessons, but without all the downside of scars and permanent damage (and damage is nurture, so by replicating what nature produced, but without the nurtures added to it by living life, you’re not actually replicating the person, but only the materials from which that person’s consciousness and identity spring forth…)
I was basically saying that, yes, the “record” of those experiences may indeed remain intact… but a fresh consciousness in a new body, is not going to understand all the developed stimuli bombarding its brain from a multitude of angles.
I think this comes down to a “you can keep either the hardware or the software, but not both” type of situation.
If i could clone an undamaged version of myself, and then transplant my own consciousness into it, i think i’d be satisfied with that.