Eternal Life...

[Neverfly]

Why would there be less frailty? Aren't we talking about a synthetic human that would be walking around doing things? It's brain is only as good as the one scanned and would be just as likely to walk into traffic as any human.

Remind you of anything?

 

[Third Eye Open]

Why would there be less frailty? Aren't we talking about a synthetic human that would be walking around doing things? It's brain is only as good as the one scanned and would be just as likely to walk into traffic as any human.

oh, I'm not sure, I thought we were talking about robotic bodies for some reason.

Any damage could be repaired and you could be 'turned back on' after the repairs, unless the information in the 'brain' was corrupted.

 

[tsig]

If you were to scan your brain and get every detail of who you are, emotions, past, education, etc,. It would be you.

You would just be in a different body.

I would have to kill my copy or it would have to kill me. We would know each other too well.

 

[Wowbagger]

Evidence?

Life, the Universe, and Everything, chapter 1.

 

[gdnp]

If the copy is identical to you in every meaningful way, what objective criteria are you employing to distinguish between you and it?

The same way I distinguish between every other thing that is not me. Just because other people cannot tell us apart does not mean I cannot tell myself from my non-self. I might not know whether I was the original or the copy: both would presumably feel like they were the original, if the copies were perfect. But when A gets stuck by a needle A feels pain, and when B gets stuck by a needle B feels pain.

Another interesting novella on this topic is Think Like a Dinosaur, by James Patrick Kelly. The premise is a transporter that scans a person, transmits the data to a receiver, and then reconstructs him/her. Once the copy is confirmed the original is killed to "balance the equation". Of course, something goes wrong and they end up with two live, awake copies who don't want to die.

 

[Taffer]

The fact that there are two of them.

Location for a start.

Yes, these are both good reasons. How do you suppose to decide which one of you dies, then, if you had to make the choice? Surely both would choose the other. What objective criteria could you use, for example, if one commited murder and was sentenced to death, and the other did not?

 

[Taffer]

The same way I distinguish between every other thing that is not me. Just because other people cannot tell us apart does not mean I cannot tell myself from my non-self. I might not know whether I was the original or the copy: both would presumably feel like they were the original, if the copies were perfect. But when A gets stuck by a needle A feels pain, and when B gets stuck by a needle B feels pain.

Another interesting novella on this topic is Think Like a Dinosaur, by James Patrick Kelly. The premise is a transporter that scans a person, transmits the data to a receiver, and then reconstructs him/her. Once the copy is confirmed the original is killed to "balance the equation". Of course, something goes wrong and they end up with two live, awake copies who don't want to die.

Indeed, you will know that you copy is "not you". But what objective criteria could a third party use to make this distinction? If they are identical, how would your wife, for example, go about deciding which one you are married to? Is she married to both?

I just want to make something clear, though. I completely understand the "but it's not *me*" argument. I would, in all probability, not have myself scanned if it meant I would die. This sort of subjective bias is pretty hard-wired into our thinking. I just admit I cannot give an objective criteria to distinguish between the two.

 

[Taffer]

Continuity might be a good start. I'm not the same person I was 25 years ago, but second-to-second there are minimal changes.

Still, I'm not sure how anyone else could distinguish between me and my duplicate, if it were done accurately enough. So objective criteria probably doesn't exist.

In fact, if Many-Worlds is true, then I already have countless clones of myself in different universes. There are probably some universes where I live a very long time--maybe forever. That's not much comfort to the brain in this universe, though.

- Dr. Trintignant

How about this scenario. There is a device which scans your entire body, and replaces each cell with an informational proxy. This process happens faster then cells replicate. So your body's cells are stripped, and their exact informational state is replicated in a computer so that there is no interruption of informational flow within the brain. There is continuity. Are you still "you"?

ETA: 4000'th post, woo!

 

[Kittyclaws]

I'd only let 'em put my brain into a robot if it looked like Angelina Jolie.

 

[steve s]

In the not-too-distant future, we'll be able to grow new replacement organs from your own cells, so their really won't be a need for artificial ones. Would you rather have a real heart beating inside you, or a mechanical one? The brain might be a bit trickier, though. Genetic engineering should eventually allow us to slow down the aging process, but as others have pointed out this could have serious repurcussions in terms of population growth.

There's a chapter in the book 2001: A Space Odyssey in which Clarke describes the beings that left the monolith behind. He talks about how they transferred their brains into machines. At one point he writes, "They didn't need spaceships, they were spaceships." Eventually the beings evolved to the point where they could store their thoughts in light itself.

Steve S

 

[Brian Jackson]

Wow. Dead topic already.

Allright, forget it.

I'm hoping the MODs will delete this. I feel foolish for even mentioning it. So, rather than bring it up more, I'm going to go do research at my local bookstore on the mind and learn more about science and technology.

The way I see it, until someone takes interests in these things, there'll never be a breakthrough. And since I believe there's no limit to knowledge other than what you set yourself up to believe, I'm going to continue trying to find a way to make my dream come true.

I realize now that my love for science and knowledge is going to fuel me to learn more about this.


Thanks for reading my sad excuse of a thread. Its my fault I was illequipped to argue my point and my fault I'm incompetent as far as retaining things I have learned. I know my logic is flawed, but at least I'm trying.

Thank you.

don't give up so soon. Actually this is a very interesting topic. My first thought is I wouldn't want to live forever because I would find life rather boring after a while. Consider a thought experiment where you were literally the oldest living being, having access to all the world's knowledge. What is there to learn? You would be taxed like Google answering questions of the uninformed. After a while that would get kind of annoying.

I kind of like the idea of life being temporary. Though most of us fear death it makes me appreciate the days I'm given, and gives me the rare opportunity to show kindness to my fellow travelers through time.

 

[theMark]

Indeed, you will know that you copy is "not you". But what objective criteria could a third party use to make this distinction? If they are identical, how would your wife, for example, go about deciding which one you are married to? Is she married to both?

I just want to make something clear, though. I completely understand the "but it's not *me*" argument. I would, in all probability, not have myself scanned if it meant I would die. This sort of subjective bias is pretty hard-wired into our thinking. I just admit I cannot give an objective criteria to distinguish between the two.

How about, as has already been mentioned, GEOMETRY? They can not do the same things in the same place and the same time. From the moment the copy is unwrapped from its clone pod or steps out of the replicator, they CAN NOT walk in the same shoes as the original at the same time. The two beings A and B simply can not occupy the same space.
Except for subjecting both A and B to massive gravitational compression, maybe, but then you'd better have a copy C ready in a distant place

What I'm trying to convey is: The "me" is not just an amount of abstract information, it's also a whole lot of atoms. "We" consist of that physical structure (and that includes the position of the parts and molecules) of our bodies and the electrical status of our brains. We get "fuzzy" around the areas where parts fall off and where new parts are integrated into the "me".

Now an "electronic" person might have a different concept of "itself", but even a virtual person on a hard drive would be distinguishable from a copy of it on another hard drive, simply because there's a second hard drive that came along a different e.g. delivery route and is mounted in a different server rack.

Uh ... does any of that make sense?

 

[Taffer]

How about, as has already been mentioned, GEOMETRY? They can not do the same things in the same place and the same time. From the moment the copy is unwrapped from its clone pod or steps out of the replicator, they CAN NOT walk in the same shoes as the original at the same time. The two beings A and B simply can not occupy the same space.
Except for subjecting both A and B to massive gravitational compression, maybe, but then you'd better have a copy C ready in a distant place

What I'm trying to convey is: The "me" is not just an amount of abstract information, it's also a whole lot of atoms. "We" consist of that physical structure (and that includes the position of the parts and molecules) of our bodies and the electrical status of our brains. We get "fuzzy" around the areas where parts fall off and where new parts are integrated into the "me".

Now an "electronic" person might have a different concept of "itself", but even a virtual person on a hard drive would be distinguishable from a copy of it on another hard drive, simply because there's a second hard drive that came along a different e.g. delivery route and is mounted in a different server rack.

Uh ... does any of that make sense?

Yes, it does. But how would someone distinguish between them? See my comments about committed crimes.

 

[theMark]

Yes, it does. But how would someone distinguish between them? See my comments about committed crimes.

Giving up on privacy, constant surveillance and adding RFID tags to anything and everyone might be a good idea. Or not
Maybe we could make goatees and mustaches a requirement for evil clones

Sorry, just goofing around.

In the case of persecution of criminal activities, it comes down to the technical problem of "refining the tools". Two people, nearly identical. Several hundred years ago, without photography, how easy would it be to distinguish between two totally different-looking blokes based on a vague description? Over time, along came photography, fingerprints, DNA. Maybe with a clone-copy, we'd start by deliberately introducing markers or serial numbers into the cloning process. Or improve tracking the trace elements found in the tissue itself. "He was the one who went to the church and married her, because I can see a significant amount of incense embedded in this follicle, compared to that guy who sat in the church bench three rows away."?

 

[Taffer]

Giving up on privacy, constant surveillance and adding RFID tags to anything and everyone might be a good idea. Or not
Maybe we could make goatees and mustaches a requirement for evil clones

Sorry, just goofing around.

In the case of persecution of criminal activities, it comes down to the technical problem of "refining the tools". Two people, nearly identical. Several hundred years ago, without photography, how easy would it be to distinguish between two totally different-looking blokes based on a vague description? Over time, along came photography, fingerprints, DNA. Maybe with a clone-copy, we'd start by deliberately introducing markers or serial numbers into the cloning process. Or improve tracking the trace elements found in the tissue itself. "He was the one who went to the church and married her, because I can see a significant amount of incense embedded in this follicle, compared to that guy who sat in the church bench three rows away."?

Granted, but then the clones are no longer identical, are they? Remember, I'm talking about identical clones.

 

[theMark]

Granted, but then the clones are no longer identical, are they? Remember, I'm talking about identical clones.

Ah-hah! Sorry, life don't work that way as soon as even a teeny tiniest amount of time passes, they are no longer identical. And for someone to marry and/or commit a crime, time has to pass. No time, no action.

And even if no time passes, one will be created in a different location from the first. There you have it. Distinction, again. Even if the two think they are identical, they will not be.

Assuming we're considering an impossible what-if case in a place where two clones can be identical even though time moves on, then I suggest we use our clone-o-detectomat, which works with 100% accuracy and is powered by unicorns. Yes, I totally made that up, but hey - who started it?

Sorry if I come across as flippant. I may have missed some obvious point along this thread and am willing to be enlightened.

For the purpose of the OP, the "eternal life by cloning" is more of "someone very similar to me can go on with my work and life, but I'll still be writhing in agony over here until I die."*

*) about 75% of causes of death are neither fast nor pleasant. 9 out of 10 people will die in a hospital and not pass away peacefully in their sleep. Deal with it.

 

[Taffer]

Ah-hah! Sorry, life don't work that way as soon as even a teeny tiniest amount of time passes, they are no longer identical. And for someone to marry and/or commit a crime, time has to pass. No time, no action.

And even if no time passes, one will be created in a different location from the first. There you have it. Distinction, again. Even if the two think they are identical, they will not be.

Assuming we're considering an impossible what-if case in a place where two clones can be identical even though time moves on, then I suggest we use our clone-o-detectomat, which works with 100% accuracy and is powered by unicorns. Yes, I totally made that up, but hey - who started it?

Sorry if I come across as flippant. I may have missed some obvious point along this thread and am willing to be enlightened.

For the purpose of the OP, the "eternal life by cloning" is more of "someone very similar to me can go on with my work and life, but I'll still be writhing in agony over here until I die."*

*) about 75% of causes of death are neither fast nor pleasant. 9 out of 10 people will die in a hospital and not pass away peacefully in their sleep. Deal with it.

We are having a philosophical discussion as to how to differentiate between identical clones. The fact that they can never be perfectly identical is beside the point. But if you insist...

We create clones that are identical in every way which can be measured by the level of technology that is possessed. They are not actually identical, but they are practically identical.

If you wish, we can take this further. We are not dealing with physical clones, but two copies of conscience, sentient, software. Both copies have identical code, but run on separate machines. If one commits a crime - he breaks into a bank and steals data, for example - who do you think should be punished? The one that actually commited the crime? But they are identical copies of each other. What if you decide that one should be deleted. If you delete only one copy, does the software not still exist?

 

[theMark]

We are having a philosophical discussion as to how to differentiate between identical clones. The fact that they can never be perfectly identical is beside the point. But if you insist...

Ah, philosophy. Is there anything it can't do? Or actually can do?
I'm sorry that I'm not much of a philosopher. Never found much attration to the contemplation of one hand clapping and trees dropping in woods, so I might not be the right one to reply to philosophical questions.

We create clones that are identical in every way which can be measured by the level of technology that is possessed. They are not actually identical, but they are practically identical.

Then we're at a crossroads that has nothing to do with clones - the question is now: In capturing someone with a 50/50 chance of being a criminal, do we punish someone who might NOT be guilty (false positive), or do we NOT punish someone who might BE guilty (false negative).

We might not want to go into that territory with the "married to a clone?" thing. Recreational activities involving n>2 people are their business and no one else's.

Yeeees, all right, I'm not 100% serious about of these philosophical ponderings. I've got a week-long holiday coming up and I'm in a silly mood, that's why I'm posting around here. Just tell me to go away, and I will

If you wish, we can take this further. We are not dealing with physical clones, but two copies of conscience, sentient, software. Both copies have identical code, but run on separate machines. If one commits a crime - he breaks into a bank and steals data, for example - who do you think should be punished? The one that actually commited the crime? But they are identical copies of each other. What if you decide that one should be deleted. If you delete only one copy, does the software not still exist?

The bank-robbing one's memory would significantly DIFFER from the other non-bank-robbing one's memory. We could compare their machines to see which one's logfiles contain the actual deed. Forensic software's good with these things.
And AGAIN, if they're still identical, either NONE or BOTH have committed the crime. If they did, then either they are a gang (but wouldn't one have seen the other then? A sees B with the balaclava and the Uzi against the counter, B sees A with the pantyhose and the pumpgun against the window = difference!), or they did the same thing. At the same time. In two cloned, simulated banks. Because, otherwise, their memory MUST differ. If we can't find the difference, see the 50/50 dilemma above...

Unrelated: I'm off to see Watchmen in the cinema now, so it might be some time before I can respond to the next round of verbal sparring

 

[tsig]

We are having a philosophical discussion as to how to differentiate between identical clones. The fact that they can never be perfectly identical is beside the point. But if you insist...

We create clones that are identical in every way which can be measured by the level of technology that is possessed. They are not actually identical, but they are practically identical.

If you wish, we can take this further. We are not dealing with physical clones, but two copies of conscience, sentient, software. Both copies have identical code, but run on separate machines. If one commits a crime - he breaks into a bank and steals data, for example - who do you think should be punished? The one that actually commited the crime? But they are identical copies of each other. What if you decide that one should be deleted. If you delete only one copy, does the software not still exist?

As soon as one commits an act that the other didn't we have a differentiation.

 

[Taffer]

The bank-robbing one's memory would significantly DIFFER from the other non-bank-robbing one's memory. We could compare their machines to see which one's logfiles contain the actual deed. Forensic software's good with these things.
And AGAIN, if they're still identical, either NONE or BOTH have committed the crime. If they did, then either they are a gang (but wouldn't one have seen the other then? A sees B with the balaclava and the Uzi against the counter, B sees A with the pantyhose and the pumpgun against the window = difference!), or they did the same thing. At the same time. In two cloned, simulated banks. Because, otherwise, their memory MUST differ. If we can't find the difference, see the 50/50 dilemma above...

Unrelated: I'm off to see Watchmen in the cinema now, so it might be some time before I can respond to the next round of verbal sparring

As soon as one commits an act that the other didn't we have a differentiation.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

So you distinguish between copies based on purely physical criteria (memories, log files, whatever). Is this correct?

If so, consider this further scenario. You have a machine which destructively scans your entire body, transmits it some distance, and then reconstructs it. You know, the standard "destructive teleporter".

a) Would you use it? If not, why not?
b) Is the being created at the end you? Remember there are not two copies, only one copy perfectly preserved from your body's "state" at the entrance point.