this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
83 points (84.3% liked)
Asklemmy
42603 readers
2290 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think (on a subrational level) that there's some essence of personhood or consciousness that seems to transcend its material fabric, becoming more than the sum of its parts. "Transcend" is too strong a word, since by all appearances there's no static being that isn't still largely a result of and dependent on its makeup; as the foundation deteriorates so does the consciousness that results from it. That spectrum of functionality seems to undermine the possibility of a true soul that exists independent of its body.
But the word certainly signifies an actual thing, I think. Take a thought experiment: if we were to somehow make an exact replica of you, down to the molecular level, it would from all perspectives except your own be you. But the essence of what is you to yourself, your continuity of perspective, would (probably) not inhabit that new body, it would still inhabit your current one. The Star Trek / Prestige problem of conscious continuity suggests there's something there, at least conceptually.
The fact that there's still a lot about physics / the universe / consciousness that science doesn't understand leaves ample room for conjecture, for now.
If we made a exact copy of me I believe it would be me, at least for a split second until it experiences something that I don't and then we'd become two different persons
Well, it would be you, from every perspective except your own. The schism would be (non)experienced at conception, imo.
Like if this replica were created in another room, another planet, whatever, without your knowledge, you wouldn't be aware of it, despite this new entity being you, for all intents and purposes.
I know I've already replied to you once here, but I've thought more since I wrote that. However, I'm going to keep it shorter this time (:
You and the person you will be tomorrow are not identical (you will have gained some experiencs and forgeten some things). But I still think that those two individuals are the same person, because you spring from the same person (more specifically; you, the one you are right know). The same thing would be true for a clone, your just separated by space instead of time.
The key to the thought experiment is perspective: we make everything identical materially to try to isolate a conceptual difference. We make the two clones identical in every way, and from nearly all perspectives they are identical (but distinct) entities. The sole difference in this scenario is the perspective of the clones, who have two distinct consciousnesses. Looking at your clone, you don't see yourself, you see someone who looks like you. Because when we distill it to its pure essence, the one thing that is uniquely you is your perspective, your present conscious experience. You are looking through your eyes, thinking your thoughts, as is this entity materially identical to you. But it's not seeing and thinking as you, thus it is something different.
There's something that ties your pure essence to its material composition, such that even a molecularly identical entity wouldn't have your consciousness (just an identical consciousness, removed from your own).
We can explore the bounds of this experiment by tweaking variables: you teleport a la star Trek, whereby your old body is disintegrated and a new identical one is immediately constructed. Or maybe you upload your consciousness when you die, so the list of variables that in theory comprise you are preserved. But in all cases, the essence that is you, your continuity of perspective, doesn't transfer over. When you die, everything goes black, and that's it. It's only from external perspectives that "you" continue. But the you that is you, you as you experience yourself, is gone.
That's good enough for me. That I'm not aware of my clones existence doesn't really change anything for me. We're (me and my clone) are both just meat robots doing our thing so even if we're not aware of one another we would be the same in the way that two identical rocks are the same.
I guess that "be" is the wrong term here. Once that clone is created were two separate objects, just identical and both without a soul described fully as the sum of our parts.