karl@dartvax.UUCP (S. Delage.) (08/05/84)
Mr. Perlberg writes ``Producing a duplicate of oneself whenever one dies is not really immortality any more than having a child.'' Doesn't this depend on the notion we take of selfhood? As Mr. Perlberg points out, it seems likely such a duplicate would behave exactly the same in all situations as I would, given that it is starting from the same point, with the same memory impressions. But doesn't that make it another ``I''? Isn't the only way to tell people apart from their behavior? For all practical purposes, it would seem to be the same person. And yet, this appears to be intuitively wrong. I suppose we'll have to wait until someone develops a matter transmitter, then we can experiment. Mr. Perlberg also points out such a transmiiter would take a long time to develop to perfection. Almost surely true, but what's the difference between imagining the changes 5,000 years from now, or 10,000? Also, one hopes that with such technical expertise, the problem Jeannie faced of creatng droughts by making it rain and the like would also be better understood, and thus avoided. Such a future would be very interesting. ``May you live in interesting times.'' dartvax!karl karl@dartmouth
nick@utcsrgv.UUCP (T.C. Nicholas Graham) (08/05/84)
Somehow, this business of matter transmission and self-duplication seems to be one of those questions that keeps coming up. It would seem to me that the result of the exact physical duplication of a human being will dependent upon what actually makes up a human being. Either you take a view that man consists of his physical component only, or else you take the view that in addition to man's material flesh and bones form, there is 'something else' that gives man his elevated place in the animal world. Elaboration: If you follow a strictly traditional evolutionary view, and say that man is just a collection of chemicals that has attained through evolutionary selection an illusion of conciousness, then fine: the exact duplication of every molecule of somebody's body will create a new, living human being. However, there is no reason to assume that this new being in any sense would provide a continuity for the original person should the original person cease to exist upon the creation of the duplicate. If you were to give me, say, a small wooden statue, I could meticulously copy every detail of it, and create a new statue that to all external tests would appear to be the same statue. However, if I were to burn your statue, I do not think that I could seriously claim that your statue still existed. Only one rather like it. If you believe that there is more to man than his physical form (eg, a soul), then simply copying the physical form is not going to be good enough. The crucial part, the soul is not going to be captured during the molecular- level transfer. This is a little more scary: imagine, a matter transfer takes place, the body is trnsmitted, the soul remains stranded outside the evaporated original host body, and a new, soulless body is assembled at the other end of the transmitter. The soul makes it's merry way off to the next world, but what happens to the body? If we follow the Christian religion, it is quite possible for a body to survive without a soul -- animals do it all the time. So do we, in one fell swoop, wipe out the souls of every person on earth? Sounds like a good 50's horror movie. All we need is a mad scientist... Anyway, that's about it as far as I can see. I don't claim to know whether a soul exists or not; however neither situation seems really thrilling to me. Guess I'll never walk into a matter transmitter. Nick Graham, University of Toronto
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (08/07/84)
[]
"The exact duplication of every molecule of somebody's body
will create a new, living human being."
Setting aside for the moment the transmission of the "soul", there's
still the conflict with Heisenberg's thesis, which states [briefly]
that you can't exactly determine both the position and the velocity of
a subatomic particle. Without this information, you can't replicate
the particle with its velocity.
And, yes, I agree that this thesis may well prove to be surmountable,
but some pretty heavy present-day theory rests on it. Anyway, it makes
as much sense to cling to Heisenberg as to the Einsteinian anti-FTL
claims ...
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (08/11/84)
Karl ---
In the question of clones and immortality, I'd have to
agree with Perlman. Selfness is not dependent on behavior.
Because you have another entity with the same genetic pattern
as yourself does not imply that this new entity is the
same as yourself. Even if you could core dump what we embody
with the term "mind" into the clone he/she/it would still
not be you. The two of you would have the same "life experiences"
up to and including the core dump, but you would no longer be
sharing the same perspectives, etc...
Philosphers and scientists have long debated what it is
that actual comprises the "soul" of a being...chances are it
doesn't depend on the hardware or the software so much as the
firmware. The combination of the physical brain and the energy
that the brain generates...
Ah well, it was just an observation...I'll stop myself
before I begin to ramble...
--- Rob DeMillo
MACC
"...I don't know what this is, but it's pointing in your direction..."scot@dartvax.UUCP (Scot Drysdale) (08/15/84)
If the Dr. McCoy on the planet is the same as Dr. McCoy on the ship, does that make him the REAL McCoy? (Sorry. I couldn't resist.) Scot Drysdale @ Dartmouth
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (08/17/84)
"The exact duplication of every molecule will
create a new human being."
Or something like that. I've never agreed with this in connection
with matter transportation. (Something like, is the Dr. McCoy on the
planet the same Dr. McCoy who left the ship?)
Matter and energy are, after all, completely equivalent. ("Yeah" for
Albert Baby!) So, if McCoy's matter is converted to energy, radiated
elsewhere, and reconvert to matter...it's the same McCoy - assuming
the matter matrix is recreated exactly.
Right? (please say yes, or I'll be crushed...)
-- Rob
MACC