Tocky on 6/12/2020 at 00:56
I suppose if a new me were made and we could somehow share input then the perspective would not be separate and in a way transferable. It would take some adjustment for the processor (brain) to process two inputs but in that way the two become one. No. That is still using two processors. When one dies it is losing one of it's perspectives to one of it's perspectives and losing itself entire to the other perspective. That would only make the surviving perspective know what death is to half itself. Hmmm. I don't see a way around the perspective dilemma.
Oops. I mean sharing input and processing output of course.
SubJeff on 6/12/2020 at 00:57
I hear you completely Tocky. It's funny you talking about perspective because as I read what you've typed it's exactly what I would have said. Even some of your sentences are pretty much the way I'd have typed it.
Pyrian - we had that exact discussion about sleep and dying when you sleep only to be "reborn" as a new you who thinks he's you. It stemmed, iirc, from a discussion about teleporters being death/replicator machines.
I got a book based on someone here's recommendation in that conversation. The Mind's I. One story is about the lady for whom the teleporter fails to disassemble the original, Riker style if you know what I mean, but the transport contract says if that happens the original must be destroyed.
Tocky on 6/12/2020 at 01:30
Clever title, "The Mind's I". Something I've thought which may sound crazy is what if God or whatever you would want to call it is reading all the input of each of us and doing it's own processing of the acquired data. In that way we do live forever though each of us information gatherers dies. God in it's loneliness big banged into the universe and is really in the end only learning itself through creation of others also itself but also not. That is a thought still in development. I wonder where it would go if pushed to it's limits.
Pyrian on 6/12/2020 at 03:52
Quote Posted by Tocky
And we did this same argument in the other thread as well.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Pyrian - we had that exact discussion about sleep and dying when you sleep only to be "reborn" as a new you who thinks he's you.
Well, then... What's the answer? What's the
difference, if
any, between being "Star Trek beamed" (annihilated and copied) and simply taking a nap?
Tocky on 6/12/2020 at 04:09
Damned if I can recall. I think there was some mention of the brain never fully shutting down and always being aware on some level so there is a continuation and not a complete break. When you hear glass break or a loud noise your brain still wakes you up to full alertness unless it's doing REM and it incorporates the sound into the dream which is still a continuation. On the other hand, there was also discussion of one moment to the next one can never prove you are still who you were previous so there is that. A sort of new information changing the whole thing. Still I'm pretty sure being annihilated ends my perspective for good. The copy will even argue that because he will be just like me.
Pyrian on 6/12/2020 at 06:17
Quote Posted by Tocky
Still I'm pretty sure being annihilated ends my perspective for good.
I'm an empiricist. Once we've
assumed that "new you" literally can't possibly tell the difference, I think it's
established that there's no actual difference. Maybe our "perspectives" changes every night - maybe every moment.
We have no idea. And there's no way to actually tell, no test that could be given to measure it, not even in any materialist theory. (If there's a soul, well, that's another matter.) Ergo... Without assuming a soul... It doesn't exist.
Tocky on 6/12/2020 at 07:26
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I'm an empiricist. Once we've
assumed that "new you" literally can't possibly tell the difference, I think it's
established that there's no actual difference.
Oh to YOU the new me will absolutely be the same. The only person the new me won't be the same to is the old me who will be dead- not on a different time line reality alternate universe perhaps- but dead in this one which is the only one I'm (the old me) in to my perspective. Also not dead in the space time continuum because nothing is there but dead in this continuing reality none the less. The old me will also be dead to the new me because the new me is an exact copy and will know what just occurred so even though the new me won't be able to tell just by thinking back on it's memories IT WILL KNOW by dent of it's reasoning capability which is exactly the same as the old me which died.
Rogue Moon. Seriously.
henke on 6/12/2020 at 07:55
[video=youtube;Y7EB4ZYWKYI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7EB4ZYWKYI&feature=emb_title[/video]
demagogue on 6/12/2020 at 10:00
Yikes, I didn't even get to the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM yet. According to that, every time there's a physical interaction the universe branches, and you branch along with it. So there are countless divergent paths of the "same person" (up to that point) into countless copies.
I've been watching a lot of YouTube videos by Sean Carroll on the topic (which are amazing by the way; cf. my last post on it) and reading his book, so getting a good dose of it. I don't want to drag the thread any further off topic though! So I'll leave it with that.
Briareos H on 6/12/2020 at 10:08
Quote Posted by Tocky
As I explained above, I did not exclude reproduction of me, I excluded my transferability. When someone is made just like you they yet have their own perspective, their own view of the world. They may react and speak in stereo, think in stereo but not be your perspective. When you die they don't. When they die you don't. No religious belief occurs in that. Singular perspective is what makes the two of you individuals and nothing else. Otherwise you are the same
to the outside world. Not to yourselves though. To both of you you are very damn precious individually no matter how non unique you are.
Thanks, I get it a bit better although in my view transferability is a non-problem, or at least I am not assigning much value to breaking the continuum. Assuming a perfect reproduction, as soon as you will stop sharing the same physical space you'll start diverging, first by very little but you'll ultimately end up completely different individuals. So I have nothing against saying that you were not transferred, merely copied. I just don't think it matters, you'll always think of yourself as yourself.
I agree that there is no religiousness in your view, just highlighting the subjective experience of each version of yourself as a unique, continuous timeline which you call "perspective". All good to me, the way I see it ends up being perfectly equivalent even if it's worded differently: for every quantum of time, I am copied into a perfect reproduction of my past self. Internally, my perspective hasn't changed as I wouldn't be able to tell if I had been copied by a purposeful device or by natural processes.