Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God. - Page 37 - Nubblies.net Forums

Der Fuhrer · 11-15-2010, 09:33 PM

This is kind of an interesting hypothetical situation which touches on the concept of a human soul.

In order to think about this, we'll have to assume that several major scientific breakthroughs have occurred. First, the technology and scientific knowledge necessary to download one's brain on to a hard drive and store it is a reality. Second, the ability to implant a computer chip into the human brain is also a reality. Finally, although this is probably already possible, the ability to make an exact human clone is a reality.

Now with these assumptions made, suppose you downloaded your brain onto a hard-drive, made an exact clone of yourself, implanted a computer chip into the clone's brain, and uploaded your brain into the clone's brain. To me, this feat implies immortality. It seems that you could live on perpetually if this technology were available. Would the clone really be "you", though? On the surface, it appears that, yes, it would be you. You would look the exact same, and you would have all of your memories, knowledge, skills, and experiences that you had as your former self. But would it really be "you", or would the clone lack a certain "something" that truly makes "you", you? Is that something a soul? Or is the brain the only "soul", and no metaphysical soul actually exists? If your clone was made and your brain uploaded to its brain, would you be all right with dying immediately after the process was completed?

Although I think that being able to transfer all the information on my brain to an exact copy of myself would put me at much greater ease about dying, I still do not believe that I would be OK with dying. While the clone may look, think, and behave just like I do, I do not believe that it would actually, completely be me. Perhaps that's because my soul makes all the difference in the world or perhaps that's just my fear of turning the lights off-my fear of dying.

Repugnant Abomination · 11-15-2010, 09:43 PM

All we are are our brains. People who think feelings come from the heart or that our "true self" is our soul are ignorant - not from a lack of intelligence, but from a lack of knowledge. If we could do everything you described in your post then yes, I think immortality would be possible.

Orgazmo · 11-15-2010, 09:53 PM

DF and I had a long conversation about this last night.

At first thought, I instantly agreed that moving my brain to a cloned body would be okay. Since my brain is me, it's all that matters. The body/organs/anything else is irrelevant.

But what if it's copied to 5 bodies? Are you all 5? Obviously not. Each one is its own person that has its own thoughts. It's not like you'd all know what one another were thinking or anything.

Think about it in these terms: What if your brain were copied to a clone while you were alive...and then you met the clone. And then what if that clone said, "Hi, I'm here so please go ahead and kill yourself...I'll take care of things going forward"? Would you be okay with that?

Thinking about that makes me feel weird.

Mr. Blonde · 11-15-2010, 10:06 PM

Reminds me a bit of Primer, The Island and just about every other clone science fiction every created.

Repugnant Abomination · 11-15-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

Think about it in these terms: What if your brain were copied to a clone while you were alive...and then you met the clone. And then what if that clone said, "Hi, I'm here so please go ahead and kill yourself...I'll take care of things going forward"? Would you be okay with that?

Beebs · 11-15-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

This is kind of an interesting hypothetical situation which touches on the concept of a human soul.

In order to think about this, we'll have to assume that several major scientific breakthroughs have occurred. First, the technology and scientific knowledge necessary to download one's brain on to a hard drive and store it is a reality. Second, the ability to implant a computer chip into the human brain is also a reality. Finally, although this is probably already possible, the ability to make an exact human clone is a reality.

Now with these assumptions made, suppose you downloaded your brain onto a hard-drive, made an exact clone of yourself, implanted a computer chip into the clone's brain, and uploaded your brain into the clone's brain. To me, this feat implies immortality. It seems that you could live on perpetually if this technology were available. Would the clone really be "you", though? On the surface, it appears that, yes, it would be you. You would look the exact same, and you would have all of your memories, knowledge, skills, and experiences that you had as your former self. But would it really be "you", or would the clone lack a certain "something" that truly makes "you", you? Is that something a soul? Or is the brain the only "soul", and no metaphysical soul actually exists? If your clone was made and your brain uploaded to its brain, would you be all right with dying immediately after the process was completed?

Although I think that being able to transfer all the information on my brain to an exact copy of myself would put me at much greater ease about dying, I still do not believe that I would be OK with dying. While the clone may look, think, and behave just like I do, I do not believe that it would actually, completely be me. Perhaps that's because my soul makes all the difference in the world or perhaps that's just my fear of turning the lights off-my fear of dying.

In one way, yes it would be you, in that it would be exactly the same as you because there is no such thing as a soul. In the literal sense, however, it would not be you, it would be a separate sentient being who just so happens to be exactly like you.

As for dying afterword, no, because you don't take control of them, you don't become two people at once.

The fact that it wouldn't be completely you isn't down to soul, it is down to that the instant it is alive it would have separate experiences to you from that point on, shaping it away from whatever is shaping you.

It would still be two separate people.

Orgazmo · 11-15-2010, 11:04 PM

The issue here is that I'd be okay with my brain going into another body, but I wouldn't be okay with my brain being copied to another body and then being destroyed. This doesn't really make sense, though...considering the only value of the brain is the information it contains.

While a soul doesn't exist in the literal sense obviously, perhaps the figurative soul can be used to explain why a copy of me isn't an acceptable replacement of me (at least not to me...no one else would give a fuck).

Repugnant Abomination · 11-15-2010, 11:25 PM

The thing is, Gaz, once your brain is split into two different bodies, that person/brain becomes someone different, because as soon as it's conscious it will begin having different experiences - different sights, smells, etc...So it's more like you're splitting yourself in half to become two different people who were exactly the same.

Or something.

Beebs · 11-15-2010, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

The thing is, Gaz, once your brain is split into two different bodies, that person/brain becomes someone different, because as soon as it's conscious it will begin having different experiences - different sights, smells, etc...So it's more like you're splitting yourself in half to become two different people who were exactly the same.

Or something.

I think you nailed it with the "becomes someone different" part, but "splitting yourself in half" sort of muddles the water.

It's not really splitting yourself in half at all, not any more than having a child, or more accurately an identical twins. You will not feel any consciousness of the clone; it will have it's own consciousness totally separate from your own.

Orgazmo · 11-16-2010, 01:07 AM

Exactly. Repug says, "All we are are our brains." Well all our brains are are repositories of information. If that could be copied, we should be okay with that info living on even if "we" do not. That's not the case, though.

And, to the "you'll change because of sites and sounds and shit" argument: It's bullshit. It's not bullshit that the new "me" would change. Obviously it would. It's bullshit that it's relevant to this argument, though.

If that hypothetical me were subjected to exactly the same things that the "real" me were subjected to, it wouldn't change my outlook at all. Even if the hypothetical me were an exact duplicate (as in...if we met, we would always say the same things at the same time to one another...like a really annoying version of "jinx" that never ends), I'd still not be okay with me ceasing to exist simply because it exists.

This implies that there's more to us than the brain.

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 11-16-2010, 01:15 AM

I think everyone is missing the bigger picture here. The real philosophical question here is whether or not it is gay if your clone helps you masturbate.

Beebs · 11-16-2010, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

Exactly. Repug says, "All we are are our brains." Well all our brains are are repositories of information. If that could be copied, we should be okay with that info living on even if "we" do not. That's not the case, though.

And, to the "you'll change because of sites and sounds and shit" argument: It's bullshit. It's not bullshit that the new "me" would change. Obviously it would. It's bullshit that it's relevant to this argument, though.

If that hypothetical me were subjected to exactly the same things that the "real" me were subjected to, it wouldn't change my outlook at all. Even if the hypothetical me were an exact duplicate (as in...if we met, we would always say the same things at the same time to one another...like a really annoying version of "jinx" that never ends), I'd still not be okay with me ceasing to exist simply because it exists.

This implies that there's more to us than the brain.

That is a good point, the two could actually remain perfectly identical but they would still be separate entities that have no particularly special relationship in terms of consciousness or self-awareness; I was using it as an example to show that they are indeed totally separate, but as you say that isn't needed.

I originally thought you meant that you wouldn't be ok with killing the clone, so I thought you were arguing the opposite of what you are.

thekremlin · 11-16-2010, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

All we are are our brains. People who think feelings come from the heart or that our "true self" is our soul are ignorant - not from a lack of intelligence, but from a lack of knowledge.

This is contrary to Plato's cave metaphor, which basically says that for any object, there are 3 levels: 1) a mass-produced chair, one of many, 2) the chair itself, and 3) the concept of a chair.

In this example, we have 1) my brain, 2) brains in general, and 3) an abstract notion of my brain, usually referred to as scientists as "the mind" and philosophers as "the soul."

As far as the clone thing goes, Orson Scott Card wrote about this in some of his sillier fiction towards the end of the Ender series. Which is worth reading but barely, the series starts phenomenally but consistantly declines.

Mr. Blonde · 11-16-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekremlin

As far as the clone thing goes, Orson Scott Card wrote about this in some of his sillier fiction towards the end of the Ender series. Which is worth reading but barely, the series starts phenomenally but consistantly declines.

I stopped after Ender in Exile. Should I keep going?

thekremlin · 11-16-2010, 10:13 AM

I'm talking about the original 4. The 1st two (which both won Hugo awards) are fantastic, 3rd is OK, 4th is almost unreadable.

Mr. Blonde · 11-16-2010, 04:58 PM

I haven't read in publication order, I've read in chronological order, so I haven't read Xenocide or Children of the Mind yet.

Enders Game
Enders Shadow
Shadow of the Hegemon
Speaker for the Dead
and Ender in Exile

That would be my suggestion for anyone considering reading these books.

But sorry to take the thread off topic.

f3lix · 11-16-2010, 07:36 PM

I'm awaiting BDH to come in here and ruin this logical thread with some religious crap about souls going to heaven. I'm hoping this post thwarts that from happening.

Der Fuhrer · 11-16-2010, 08:53 PM

I think the key here is consciousness. Even though our clones would be exactly identical to us, and would do the exact same things that we would do, it would not be our conscious thought controlling the mind. With our limited understanding of the human brain and human consciousness, it's difficult to say where conscious thought comes from (at least I don't know, obviously the brain, but I mean more specifically and how exactly it works). In this discussion we, unknowingly, made the assumption that the conscious thought, as part of the brain, could not also be transferred to a hard drive and the uploaded to a clone. This is starting to get a little mind-fucky, but if that were possible, then I think we would all be fine with dying after the transfer was complete. If you didn't die, then, I guess you'd have conscious control over two different beings, which is unfathomable. Of course, this is all speculation because we may never know exactly where consciousness comes from and how it works, led alone have the ability to transfer it.

In summary, I guess you could say either consciousness is the soul, or that it simply gives the illusion of a soul. At the very least, it's what seemingly makes us not ok with dying after the clone is created your brain transferred.

ninjaface · 11-16-2010, 09:36 PM

Everything would play out like it did in The 6th Day

YouTube - The 6th Day trailer

Orgazmo · 11-16-2010, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuhrer

Consciousness shit

Conscious decisions and all of that...it's all in the brain. The reason a person responds to a stimulus the way they do is because of shit that's stored in the brain. Sure, you make the decision yourself...but you make that decision based on past experiences, personality, etc.

This goes back to the "what if both people are EXACTLY the same" thing. If the clone and the original have been exposed to the exact same things, their conscious decision will be identical. The original isn't controlling the clone...but the clone will respond in all situations exactly as the original would.

In short: That can't be the reason.

Beebs · 11-16-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

Conscious decisions and all of that...it's all in the brain. The reason a person responds to a stimulus the way they do is because of shit that's stored in the brain. Sure, you make the decision yourself...but you make that decision based on past experiences, personality, etc.

This goes back to the "what if both people are EXACTLY the same" thing. If the clone and the original have been exposed to the exact same things, their conscious decision will be identical. The original isn't controlling the clone...but the clone will respond in all situations exactly as the original would.

In short: That can't be the reason.

I don't think that is going to be the case; at some point they would diverge, and then that divergence would lead to new experiences, and on and on.

Some decisions we really don't care, and just happen to pick one at random.

Orgazmo · 11-16-2010, 10:51 PM

Agreed that they would diverge...but they would diverge in the exact same way had the original been exposed to the same experiences. In other words, if the original is A and the clone is B...they obviously start at the same point (when the copy takes place). From that point forward, my contention is that, if two storylines played out simultaneously...one as normal and one with A and B switching roles immediately following the copy...the results would be the exact same.

I don't think the "pick on at random" is random. Anytime someone makes a decision, it's based on a set of variables. Granted, the variables are nearly infinite. It's nothing we could ever predict due to the number of these variables, but, if the brains are identical copies, it won't matter. Since any variables within the brain will be identical and the environments will be identical (since this is a hypothetical situation where that's the case), the "conscious" decision will be identical.

Beebs · 11-16-2010, 10:55 PM

Yea, I guess if you could create two perfectly identical worlds, that control random events that are out of the subjects control, you could have them acting identically. Although for some reason, I am just wanting to think that eventually there would be a break, even though I think logically there would not be.

Orgazmo · 11-16-2010, 11:00 PM

It's quite fucked up to think about, though. If there really would be no break (which I believe would be the case)...why am I not okay with ceasing to exist so long as the clone continues?

Fuck.

Beebs · 11-16-2010, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

It's quite fucked up to think about, though. If there really would be no break (which I believe would be the case)...why am I not okay with ceasing to exist so long as the clone continues?

Fuck.

Well the second part is quite easy, I think, because you wouldn't feel or experience anything the clone is doing.

A stranger doing the exact same things I do would not make me feel any better about dieing, even if that stranger was exactly the same as me.

Even if what turns you off about death is not leaving your legacy, as opposed to not being able to continue to experience life, it isn't really your legacy if the clone is doing it.

11-15-2010, 10:06 PM	#904 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Reminds me a bit of Primer, The Island and just about every other clone science fiction every created.
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna

11-16-2010, 01:15 AM	#911 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,348 Internets: 290966	I think everyone is missing the bigger picture here. The real philosophical question here is whether or not it is gay if your clone helps you masturbate.
	#YOLO

11-15-2010, 09:33 PM	#901 (permalink)
Der Fuhrer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 549 Internets: 5464	This is kind of an interesting hypothetical situation which touches on the concept of a human soul. In order to think about this, we'll have to assume that several major scientific breakthroughs have occurred. First, the technology and scientific knowledge necessary to download one's brain on to a hard drive and store it is a reality. Second, the ability to implant a computer chip into the human brain is also a reality. Finally, although this is probably already possible, the ability to make an exact human clone is a reality. Now with these assumptions made, suppose you downloaded your brain onto a hard-drive, made an exact clone of yourself, implanted a computer chip into the clone's brain, and uploaded your brain into the clone's brain. To me, this feat implies immortality. It seems that you could live on perpetually if this technology were available. Would the clone really be "you", though? On the surface, it appears that, yes, it would be you. You would look the exact same, and you would have all of your memories, knowledge, skills, and experiences that you had as your former self. But would it really be "you", or would the clone lack a certain "something" that truly makes "you", you? Is that something a soul? Or is the brain the only "soul", and no metaphysical soul actually exists? If your clone was made and your brain uploaded to its brain, would you be all right with dying immediately after the process was completed? Although I think that being able to transfer all the information on my brain to an exact copy of myself would put me at much greater ease about dying, I still do not believe that I would be OK with dying. While the clone may look, think, and behave just like I do, I do not believe that it would actually, completely be me. Perhaps that's because my soul makes all the difference in the world or perhaps that's just my fear of turning the lights off-my fear of dying.

11-15-2010, 09:43 PM	#902 (permalink)
Repugnant Abomination Almost there... Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,979 Internets: 164547	All we are are our brains. People who think feelings come from the heart or that our "true self" is our soul are ignorant - not from a lack of intelligence, but from a lack of knowledge. If we could do everything you described in your post then yes, I think immortality would be possible.

11-15-2010, 09:53 PM	#903 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,723 Internets: 311447	DF and I had a long conversation about this last night. At first thought, I instantly agreed that moving my brain to a cloned body would be okay. Since my brain is me, it's all that matters. The body/organs/anything else is irrelevant. But what if it's copied to 5 bodies? Are you all 5? Obviously not. Each one is its own person that has its own thoughts. It's not like you'd all know what one another were thinking or anything. Think about it in these terms: What if your brain were copied to a clone while you were alive...and then you met the clone. And then what if that clone said, "Hi, I'm here so please go ahead and kill yourself...I'll take care of things going forward"? Would you be okay with that? Thinking about that makes me feel weird.

11-15-2010, 11:04 PM	#907 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,723 Internets: 311447	The issue here is that I'd be okay with my brain going into another body, but I wouldn't be okay with my brain being copied to another body and then being destroyed. This doesn't really make sense, though...considering the only value of the brain is the information it contains. While a soul doesn't exist in the literal sense obviously, perhaps the figurative soul can be used to explain why a copy of me isn't an acceptable replacement of me (at least not to me...no one else would give a fuck).

11-15-2010, 11:25 PM	#908 (permalink)
Repugnant Abomination Almost there... Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,979 Internets: 164547	The thing is, Gaz, once your brain is split into two different bodies, that person/brain becomes someone different, because as soon as it's conscious it will begin having different experiences - different sights, smells, etc...So it's more like you're splitting yourself in half to become two different people who were exactly the same. Or something.

11-16-2010, 01:07 AM	#910 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,723 Internets: 311447	Exactly. Repug says, "All we are are our brains." Well all our brains are are repositories of information. If that could be copied, we should be okay with that info living on even if "we" do not. That's not the case, though. And, to the "you'll change because of sites and sounds and shit" argument: It's bullshit. It's not bullshit that the new "me" would change. Obviously it would. It's bullshit that it's relevant to this argument, though. If that hypothetical me were subjected to exactly the same things that the "real" me were subjected to, it wouldn't change my outlook at all. Even if the hypothetical me were an exact duplicate (as in...if we met, we would always say the same things at the same time to one another...like a really annoying version of "jinx" that never ends), I'd still not be okay with me ceasing to exist simply because it exists. This implies that there's more to us than the brain.

11-16-2010, 10:13 AM	#915 (permalink)
thekremlin Don't call me Shirley Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: London Posts: 3,271 Internets: 220249	I'm talking about the original 4. The 1st two (which both won Hugo awards) are fantastic, 3rd is OK, 4th is almost unreadable.

11-16-2010, 04:58 PM	#916 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	I haven't read in publication order, I've read in chronological order, so I haven't read Xenocide or Children of the Mind yet. Enders Game Enders Shadow Shadow of the Hegemon Speaker for the Dead and Ender in Exile That would be my suggestion for anyone considering reading these books. But sorry to take the thread off topic.

11-16-2010, 07:36 PM	#917 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	I'm awaiting BDH to come in here and ruin this logical thread with some religious crap about souls going to heaven. I'm hoping this post thwarts that from happening.

11-16-2010, 08:53 PM	#918 (permalink)
Der Fuhrer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 549 Internets: 5464	I think the key here is consciousness. Even though our clones would be exactly identical to us, and would do the exact same things that we would do, it would not be our conscious thought controlling the mind. With our limited understanding of the human brain and human consciousness, it's difficult to say where conscious thought comes from (at least I don't know, obviously the brain, but I mean more specifically and how exactly it works). In this discussion we, unknowingly, made the assumption that the conscious thought, as part of the brain, could not also be transferred to a hard drive and the uploaded to a clone. This is starting to get a little mind-fucky, but if that were possible, then I think we would all be fine with dying after the transfer was complete. If you didn't die, then, I guess you'd have conscious control over two different beings, which is unfathomable. Of course, this is all speculation because we may never know exactly where consciousness comes from and how it works, led alone have the ability to transfer it. In summary, I guess you could say either consciousness is the soul, or that it simply gives the illusion of a soul. At the very least, it's what seemingly makes us not ok with dying after the clone is created your brain transferred.

11-16-2010, 10:51 PM	#922 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,723 Internets: 311447	Agreed that they would diverge...but they would diverge in the exact same way had the original been exposed to the same experiences. In other words, if the original is A and the clone is B...they obviously start at the same point (when the copy takes place). From that point forward, my contention is that, if two storylines played out simultaneously...one as normal and one with A and B switching roles immediately following the copy...the results would be the exact same. I don't think the "pick on at random" is random. Anytime someone makes a decision, it's based on a set of variables. Granted, the variables are nearly infinite. It's nothing we could ever predict due to the number of these variables, but, if the brains are identical copies, it won't matter. Since any variables within the brain will be identical and the environments will be identical (since this is a hypothetical situation where that's the case), the "conscious" decision will be identical.

11-16-2010, 10:55 PM	#923 (permalink)
Beebs Poor Sport Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianapolis / Middlebury / Long Lake Posts: 5,306 Internets: 127341	Yea, I guess if you could create two perfectly identical worlds, that control random events that are out of the subjects control, you could have them acting identically. Although for some reason, I am just wanting to think that eventually there would be a break, even though I think logically there would not be.

11-16-2010, 11:00 PM	#924 (permalink)
Orgazmo COME ON YOU YANKS Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 15,723 Internets: 311447	It's quite fucked up to think about, though. If there really would be no break (which I believe would be the case)...why am I not okay with ceasing to exist so long as the clone continues? Fuck.