Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

exolymph.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#71

Post by dietrichepp »

mickeypi wrote: post #36
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the original is kept around is the entire point. Let's say your molecules were taken apart... and that's it. That's called "dying".

Yes, and if we actually had a way to disassemble and reassemble humans, the reassembled beings would tell you that the experiment works and their consciousness goes back to their first memories as a child. But the disassembled person would have been destroyed and therefore unable to share their opinion on the matter.

This dodges the question. The question is not whether the original is destroyed, but whether it matters.

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#72

Post by didgeoridoo »

noonespecial wrote: post #9

The author of the article is asking a bit of a different question than the the authors of the articles he cites. The cited are more about "what is consciousness" in the context of can a computer be. The author is asking "what am I" That's a little harder isn't it? He's asking if he got copied instantly and sent to Mars which one of the copies would still be me ? Well, they both would wouldn't they? Each having a cont…

"And what of the immortal soul in such transactions? Can this machine transmit and reattach it as well? Or is it lost forever, leaving a soulless body to wander the world in despair?"

-- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "We Must Dissent"

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#73

Post by mikelevins »

chongli wrote: post #62
snom380 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my question is, yes, you can know that you're still alive, but how can you know that you're still _you_?

What a weird question. You're always you, until you die. Even if you became totally paralyzed, blind, deaf, etc. (total sensory deprivation) you'd still be you. All that is you is just the voice in your head, the ability to ask the question, and to think about an answer. As for what happens to your body or anything else in the world? You can't ever get rid of those doubts. The only thing you can know without a doubt…

In context of the thought experiment there can be more than one person with equal claim to be the person that you believe yourself to be. For example, given the postulated copying technology there could be Two or ten or a hundred people with the same claim 91 you to be today's version of who you remember yourself to be. The only thing that makes one person's claim better than another's is a perceived continuity of physical substrate. But even that perceived continuity is at least partly a fiction, since the physical substrate isn't really the Same from one day to the next, or even from one moment to the next. Bits of it are always being swapped out, lost and replaced. It's a valid question to ask, in that context how do you know when you wake up that you're the same person who went to sleep? Why do you think you are the same person, as opposed to an entirely new person who happens to have inherited a particular batch of ingredients of memory for assembling a story about who you are?

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#74

Post by qbrass »

jaxomlotus wrote: post #4

Another similar thought experiment is what happen if we cut ourselves laterally exactly in half and then fill back in the missing half on both parts. In the case of both halves, we are continuing an existing consciousness. Would you be OK killing off one of the halves?

I've been through this a million times before. If they refuse to act with me as a single entity, they're dead to me.

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#75

Post by unclenoriega »

curioussavage wrote: post #70
aappleby wrote: post #3

Imagine that I visit a cloning facility that can flawlessly duplicate a human, memories and all. The techs there put me in a medical gown and sedate me, and a while later I wake up in an empty room. Without any additional information, I have no way to determine if I am the clone or not. I know only that there is another me in the building somewhere, having the exact same thoughts as I am having right now. In fact, I…

There are a few problems I see with this. Each individuals perspective is limited. That is only reason why your 'clone' might not know or care about those things. As third party observers in that situation we would know that one is a 'copy' and we (or at least I) would care (and even object) to the killing of either one. From my perspective I can see that there are two distinct unique individuals having different tho…

> From my perspective I can see that there are two distinct unique individuals having different thoughts saying different things and doing different things.

Can you though? Assuming the cloning process works, and assuming they wake up in identical rooms, why would they think, say, or do anything differently?

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#76

Post by AgentME »

michael_h wrote: post #53
AgentME wrote: post #17

It's an interesting problem, but I don't feel like this page accomplished much besides calling a position he disagreed with a fallacy and using unexplained appeals to emotion. >To refute this, let’s conduct a thought experiment. Pretend that you can copy a human brain. There are ten copies of me. They are all individually conscious — perfect replicas that only diverge after the point when replication happened. Is it…

If you haven't seen Primer, I recommend it. MILD SPOILER: If you could make short-lived copies of yourself, you should probably keep a close eye on them. After all, you're clever, they're clever. You're motivated to keep existing, so are they.

>You're motivated to keep existing, so are they.

This is kind of the point I'm arguing against. I'm sure many people would have struggles with their copies, but I think someone disciplined and with the right (well, useful) definitions of self and the meanings of survival internalized could avoid the issue entirely, and accept their short-livedness if they know another instance of themselves is going to continue.

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#77

Post by dwaltrip »

unclenoriega wrote: post #75
curioussavage wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few problems I see with this. Each individuals perspective is limited. That is only reason why your 'clone' might not know or care about those things. As third party observers in that situation we would know that one is a 'copy' and we (or at least I) would care (and even object) to the killing of either one. From my perspective I can see that there are two distinct unique individuals having different tho…

> From my perspective I can see that there are two distinct unique individuals having different thoughts saying different things and doing different things. Can you though? Assuming the cloning process works, and assuming they wake up in identical rooms, why would they think, say, or do anything differently?

Yes, because it wouldn't be possible to keep the environment "identical" for very long, so they would diverge.

Thinking about it more... I don't even think it is remotely possible to control the "initial conditions" perfectly enough (upon waking up), so they would diverge instantly. Sure, they might act very similarly, but it would quite clear that they are separate entities.

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#78

Post by mickeypi »

dietrichepp wrote: post #71
mickeypi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and if we actually had a way to disassemble and reassemble humans, the reassembled beings would tell you that the experiment works and their consciousness goes back to their first memories as a child. But the disassembled person would have been destroyed and therefore unable to share their opinion on the matter.

This dodges the question. The question is not whether the original is destroyed, but whether it matters.

Sorry, that was intended to be implied. The original would say that it matters to them but to any observer it does not.

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#79

Post by dustinls »

I think fork is a more appropriate description than clone. After the point the new consciousness exists, it immediately begins creating its own experiences from that moment on and ceases to be a clone anymore.

I don't think it makes a difference whether a consciousness is destroyed after its been forked or not. Either way, I wouldn't be volunteering for that kind of experiment any time soon.

Quantum Immortality comes to mind though. I think it may have been Tesla who also mentioned that our consciousness is a receiver that tunes in to the closest match. If this were the case, then I might volunteer after all.

I imagine the only way to know for sure would be to invent the technology to clone/fork consciousness, separate them, show them different cards, destroy one, and ask the other to describe both cards.

Re: The Cloned-Consciousness-as-Continuous-Consciousness Fallacy

#80

Post by noonespecial »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #72
noonespecial wrote: post #9

The author of the article is asking a bit of a different question than the the authors of the articles he cites. The cited are more about "what is consciousness" in the context of can a computer be. The author is asking "what am I" That's a little harder isn't it? He's asking if he got copied instantly and sent to Mars which one of the copies would still be me ? Well, they both would wouldn't they? Each having a cont…

"And what of the immortal soul in such transactions? Can this machine transmit and reattach it as well? Or is it lost forever, leaving a soulless body to wander the world in despair?" -- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "We Must Dissent"

Look at any photograph or work of art. If you could duplicate exactly the first tiny dot of color, and then the next and the next, you would end with a perfect copy of the whole, indistinguishable from the original in every way, including the so-called "moral value" of the art itself. Nothing can transcend its smallest elements.

-- CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Ethics of Greed"

Post reply on HN