Who are you? What makes you "you"?

[Thinker_Doer]

You’re mistaken. Have a lovely evening.

Oh, don’t worry about it. I am having a wonderful evening, seeing how you try to wiggle out from your self-created problem. There are no “intelligent” people, who would waste their time on contemplating problems, which have no (and cannot have any) solutions… well, maybe in the loony bins there might be some… what is your current address?

 

[Gorgias]

I am having a wonderful evening, seeing how you try to wiggle out from your self-created problem.

Glad to be here to be your personal entertainment.

No wriggling here – just pointing out the absurdity of your requests. Keep 'em coming, though, if they keep you in stitches – they’re doing the same for me!

what is your current address?

I really appreciate your good will. It’s enlightening, and helps me understand where you’re coming from.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Glad to be here to be your personal entertainment.

Just for the fun of it, I will explain it one more time. Maybe you will understand it, maybe you won’t. My original question was a simple, straightforward problem. Why should anyone be concerned about a problem, which has no solution, and which cannot have a solution - even in principle. The question at hand was the difference between some original object or behavior and a perfect simulation of it. Or, using a slightly different wording, the difference between an “original” and a perfect replica of it.

You tried to change the subject and attempted to talk about a completely different question, namely about a certain UNSPECIFIED group of people, who might be investigating the NATURE of unspecified and unsolvable problems. It might be interesting, but it has nothing to do with the original question. Maybe you did not understand the difference, or maybe you did, and wanted to change the subject. I don’t care either way.

If you ever wish to continue, just stick to the question as it was presented. Is there a difference between the original and a perfect simulation? Or is there a difference between an original and a perfect replica? In both cases there is no difference in their activities and/or in the physical structure.

Are you ready to engage in an HONEST exchange of ideas? Or just trying to deflect the questions?

 

[PetraG]

If you ever wish to continue, just stick to the question as it was presented. Is there a difference between the original and a perfect simulation ? Or is there a difference between an original and a perfect replica ? In both cases there is no difference in their activities and/or in the physical structure.

OK…this is a science fiction question, so I’m going to ask for a science fiction clarification.
Do you mean that if the transporter on the Enterprise were to spit out two identical Dr. McCoys, which of the following is true?
a) one is the real Dr. McCoy and one is a replica
b) there are now two real Dr. McCoys, each with an equally valid claim of being the original
c) there is no “real” Dr. McCoy, because the original has been destroyed every time the doctor stepped into that contraption, even though his replicas always come out just as curmugeonly as before and with the full knowledge of all the mischief committed by his even-more-often-recreated friend, Captain James T Kirk.
d) None of the above, namely ____________________ (such as: the entire concept of a “real” Dr. McCoy is arbitrary and ultimately means only what two people in conversation agree that it means; one replica could maintain he is the real McCoy and the other could maintain he is the real McCoy, and neither would have the better argument…)

 

[Thinker_Doer]

OK…this is a science fiction question, so I’m going to ask for a science fiction clarification.

Very well, let’s do that. Really fun stuff.

I have not seen the Star Trek movies (shame on me!) so I will use a slightly different and simplified, but otherwise identical approach. Suppose there is a “copy machine”, which is able to read every atom in an object (say the picture of the Mona Lisa) and is able to place an identical atom into the same place in the copy. At the end of the process, there will be two copies of Mona Lisa, one in tray “A”, the (name removed by moderator)ut, and another in tray “B”, the output. The atoms have no “personality”, any carbon atom is identical to any other carbon atom.

We know that the version in tray “A” was actually touched by the hand of da Vinci, and the other one is tray “B” was not. So there IS a difference. But there is no way to determine which one is which. If you would blink for a split of a second, and someone would swap the the two objects, there would be no way to determine, which one was the “original” and which one was the “replica”.

As such the only rational conclusion would be: “the question is irrelevant, because it cannot be answered.” Just like the question: “which is the upper side of the Moebius strip. Or what is to the north from the North Pole.” We need to learn that not every syntactically correct questions are meaningful semantically. Simple, is it not?

Going back to your original question, the answer is “d)”… Thank you for your contribution.

 

[vz71]

Do you mean that if the transporter on the Enterprise were to spit out two identical Dr. McCoys, which of the following is true?

Since the transporter device in star trek is not real, and cannot actually be a real device, the use is purely hypothetical.
There is no such thing as a perfect copy.

 

[PetraG]

This is a science fiction related question. So, if you don’t like sci-fi, don’t bother with it.

I have not seen the Star Trek movies (shame on me!) so I will use a slightly different and simplified, but otherwise identical approach.

You started a science fiction-based thread and you have not seen Star Trek…movies? What about the series?
My brain just blew up, lol.

We know that the version in tray “A” was actually touched by the hand of da Vinci, and the other one is tray “B” was not. So there IS a difference. But there is no way to determine which one is which. If you would blink for a split of a second, and someone would swap the the two objects, there would be no way to determine, which one was the “original” and which one was the “replica”.

We have identical twins. People can mix them up, but they know the difference. The question of whether they are two different people is extremely relevant to them.
If you made a copy of a person, would the person and their artificial twin know the difference?
How can you say, one way or the other?

My experience with twins tells me that if there were no discernible difference, the two people would soon create one. These science fiction movies in which people have no self-awareness and no thought of being individuals simply because they all have the same DNA and upbringing are absolute nonsense. That is not the way people are, not if they’re not drugged into oblivion. Clones would merely be twins!

Since the transporter device in star trek is not real, and cannot actually be a real device, the use is purely hypothetical.
There is no such thing as a perfect copy.

This was started as a science fiction thread, with the caveat, “…if you don’t like sci-fi, don’t bother with it.”

This is a Catholic forum, so I will ask this: Who would argue that if humankind became capable of producing the twin of a person who is indistinguishable from the original that the twin would be
a) a “Son of Adam” or a “Daughter of Eve” as C.S. Lewis would have put it, made in the image and likeness of God, a person to whom God would give an individual immortal soul, such that the person would be the exact analogy of a biological identical twin, having all the rights and features of any other human being
b) a copy of a human being, but not a human being and therefore would not have the human rights of a human being
c) none of the above (describe)

What if a humanoid were produced who was a genetically-modified hybrid between a human being and some other organism or organisms? What identity should that being be told they have? Where would such a being fit in the message of the Gospel? Would the being have the rights of a human or the place of a non-human creature or of neither, being the creation not of God but of human beings?

We have to admit that this is not necessarily a question that humankind will never have to answer, since humankind is throwing off moral boundaries.

 

[vz71]

This was started as a science fiction thread, with the caveat, “…if you don’t like sci-fi, don’t bother with it.”

Do you have some knowledge of my feelings towards science fiction?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

My brain just blew up, lol.

I am a book person. And I like to create my own images of the characters. Participating in the creation process, if you will.

If you made a copy of a person, would the person and their artificial twin know the difference?
How can you say, one way or the other?

This is why I like the “copy machine” concept. But even there comes a huge problem. Let’s play with three scenarios.

Scenario #1: During the copy process, the actual atoms are transmitted to the new location. So the teleportation seems to be flawless. Joe disappears here, and reappears there. Sounds simple, even if the process would be technically very difficult.

Scenario #2: The copy machine is “crude”. During the process it uses a destructive “ray”, which gathers the information about each atom, and places the identical atom to the corresponding coordinate in the “copy”. In a sense this would be teleportation, too. The copied person would disappear at the original position, while the “copy” appear at the new place.

Scenario #3: The copying device is very sophisticated. It merely reads the information of each atom, but does not cause any harm to them. An identical atom is selected from a “bag”, and placed into the proper place. At the end we have two identical objects, identical all the way down to the particle level.

There is no “teleportation” involved. We shall have two identical copies, at least for a split of a second. As soon both entities start to receive information, their neural network will change, so they will not be “identical” any more. But the question of “which is the original and which is the copy” remains nonsensical.

The best answer comes from Popeye: “I yam what I yam and that’s what I yam.”

 

[vz71]

There is no “teleportation” involved. We shall have two identical copies, at least for a split of a second.

I think you are getting into a nonsense question.

Rather then try to break your back to make up something believable, just cut to the chase.

There are now two of you. Which one is you?

 

[PetraG]

Do you have some knowledge of my feelings towards science fiction?

I’m sorry, I think I missed the point you were making by saying, “Since the transporter device in star trek is not real, and cannot actually be a real device, the use is purely hypothetical.” You seemed to be objecting to making this into a science fiction thread.

 

[PetraG]

Scenario #1: During the copy process, the actual atoms are transmitted to the new location. So the teleportation seems to be flawless. Joe disappears here, and reappears there. Sounds simple, even if the process would be technically very difficult.

I don’t know about you, but if all my atoms were all separated, in that moment I’d be quite dead. Gone. Non-existent in body, as if my body had been shot into a star and vaporized to the elements. I would think it is a moot point whether the copy made of me were constructed from the same atoms or from different ones. I’ve been getting atom and molecule replacements on a constant basis since birth, after all. Even my bones have been continually demolished and reconstructed in place. There are some elements that are excreted very poorly, so I could have a few that I’ve been carrying around since I reached full size, but the truth is that I could easily have not a single atom in me that has been in that spot for 50 years.

What of it? If I were afflicted with amnesia, would I not still be myself? If I had any number of amputations, would I not still be myself? If I were killed and an exact copy made of me and that person were to be convinced that she is me, would she be me? Does carrying around the delusion that you are a person who seems indistinguishable from you and being able to pass yourself off as that person make you into that person?

After all, let us remember that we believe that those whose bodies have been cremated will nevertheless participate in the resurrection of the dead. Won’t their bodies be their bodies because they will be not the creation of a human but the creation of God, the author of Life?

Who is that being who received my baptism, who carries that indelible seal? That is the question, isn’t it?

We can be as science-fictiony as we like, but the answer still has to coincide with the immutable truths we know and profess.

I believe that a transporter machine could re-create everything about me except my soul. Only God can create a soul. The physical body God gives me, the one that my soul resides in, that is my body. That is the person who is indelibly sealed by my baptism, my confirmation. Whether or not any human can ever come up with a detector to identify a soul or not, whether I am self-aware or deluded about my identity, in the end that is what it means to be me.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

What of it? If I were afflicted with amnesia, would I not still be myself?

Is your corpse still “you”? If your head would be placed between the two poles of a very strong electromagnet, it would erase your personality, your abilities, your memories… etc. On what grounds could that “thing” be you?

A long as your replacement limbs would work approximately as the originals, yes, you would still be approximately the same person. With some level of disability, maybe. Or you might gain new abilities as a cyborg, akin to the million dollar man. Which ties back beautifully to the topic of this thread: "What makes you to be “you”? " . Or, using the Thomistic vocabulary, what is your “essence” - as opposed to the “accidents”?

I believe that a transporter machine could re-create everything about me except my soul.

Looks like that you subscribe to concept that the soul is the “ghost in the machine”. This is one of the many soul-concepts out there. And of course they are all empty speculations, without any evidence for them. However, if this hypothetical copy machine will ever become a reality, and we place of single cell bacterium into the (name removed by moderator)ut tray, and then an identical bacterium would appear in the the output tray… that will have a huge impact and great argument against the concept of the soul.

Yes, this is still science fiction, but not the same kind as imagining time travel, when you could go back into the past to kill your grandfather. That is impossible, this copy machine is quite possible.

 

[PetraG]

Looks like that you subscribe to concept that the soul is the “ghost in the machine”.

I don’t subscribe to any concept about what a soul is except that I have an immortal essence of some kind that does not die when my body is reduced to a box of ashes. I also believe that the resurrection of the dead is a bodily resurrection. As for the mechanics of how all that works, I would be merely guessing. I have no idea what kind of “evidence” you could possibly have for or against this concept. Just because a physical copying machine can’t duplicate something does not imply that the thing which is beyond duplication cannot possibly exist. Let’s face it: there is no evidence whatsoever that it is possible to produce a living thing except to transfer life from a different living thing. You can’t even show that this is possible. Some theory that people make up about what is and is not possible doesn’t create a reality.

I don’t subscribe to an argument about whether or not I have an immortal soul. I believe I am an eternal creature, and that I cannot be extinguished merely by reducing my physical appearance to ashes.

This is a Catholic forum, and since we believe without question in the reliability of revealed truth, I’m allowed.

 

[vz71]

I’m sorry…You seemed to be objecting to making this into a science fiction thread.

No problem.

I just prefer my thought experiments to have some basis in reality.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

This is a Catholic forum, and since we believe without question in the reliability of revealed truth, I’m allowed.

I have no problem with that. But since this is a philosophy forum, and the topic is a fully secular question, we can leave it here.

One remark, however. Biology is the one and only discipline which is unable to give a strict definition for its subject, namely “what is life”? The only definition is very vague: “life is complex response to complex stimuli”. All the attempts which try to add extra criteria to it keep failing, because there are exceptions.

 

[PetraG]

I have no problem with that. But since this is a philosophy forum, and the topic is a fully secular question, we can leave it here.

One remark, however. Biology is the one and only discipline which is unable to give a strict definition for its subject, namely “what is life”? The only definition is very vague: “life is complex response to complex stimuli”. All the attempts which try to add extra criteria to it keep failing, because there are exceptions.

It is just possible that biologists don’t understand the difference between what’s alive and what’s not. It is a wonderful universe. There was a time when organic chemistry didn’t know what the difference was between an organic molecule and an inorganic one. (It was thought that organic molecules couldn’t be synthesized purely in vitro, but had to be made at least in part by a living organism.)

I’m OK with people saying, “hey, I don’t adhere to the Nicene Creed, so my ideas about what makes us human and what makes each of us a person are different.” Fair enough. I meant to remind Catholics that philosophically speaking we don’t have compartmentalized truth. We don’t have to be able to explain everything, but we do have to maintain internal consistency with what we believe to be revealed truth in order to remain orthodox.

 

[Wozza]

PetraG:

This was started as a science fiction thread, with the caveat, “…if you don’t like sci-fi, don’t bother with it.”

Do you have some knowledge of my feelings towards science fiction?

Yeah. ‘It’s not real’.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

It is just possible that biologists don’t understand the difference between what’s alive and what’s not. It is a wonderful universe.

The question is the dividing line between the two. Are viruses “alive”? Or are they crystal-like things, which carry some, but not all attributes of life? Most biologists consider them alive, some don’t. If they are alive… what about the computer viruses? The name is very appropriate, they behave just like the biological viruses do.

What about the “info-bots”? They crawl the web, collect information and make the web “searchable”. Wonderful “gadgets”. What about “Watson”, the IBM computer, which helps thousands of diagnosticians to identify health problems, afar from the patients and the doctors? Very high level, specialized knowledge.

We need to be cognizant of the difference between biologically active life and informatically active life. This later one is not necessarily composed of carbon based molecules, but it reacts to complex stimuli with complex responses. Yes, the universe is wonderful.

 

[vz71]

Yeah. ‘It’s not real’.

Like a 4 sided triangle or a 3 sided square.

They simply do not relate to reality.
And are nonsense.