My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[ryan]

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

Intrinsic properties of, say, an electron do not depend on what city they are in. If they did, then we would have many more fundamental particles.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?
EB

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

Suppose further that they don't. What then?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

 

[Juma]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

 

[bilby]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

It's worse than that, Jim. The copies are identical at the atomic level; every atomic nucleus in the body will undergo instant and simultaneous fusion. The bang would make the Tsar Bomba look like a damp firecracker.

 

[PyramidHead]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

It's worse than that, Jim. The copies are identical at the atomic level; every atomic nucleus in the body will undergo instant and simultaneous fusion. The bang would make the Tsar Bomba look like a damp firecracker.

Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Peter Venkman: What?
Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Venkman: Why?
Spengler: It would be bad.
Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal!
Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

Suppose further that the two clones wouldn't explode. What then?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

It's worse than that, Jim. The copies are identical at the atomic level; every atomic nucleus in the body will undergo instant and simultaneous fusion. The bang would make the Tsar Bomba look like a damp firecracker.

As I said, for the sake of the argument, suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Suppose further this doesn't make them explode. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?
EB

 

[Juma]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

It's worse than that, Jim. The copies are identical at the atomic level; every atomic nucleus in the body will undergo instant and simultaneous fusion. The bang would make the Tsar Bomba look like a damp firecracker.

As I said, for the sake of the argument, suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Suppose further this doesn't make them explode. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?
EB

What? Suppose the world doesnt work as it does... What then?
Do you realize how silly that question is?

But if go with the question then really what?
I see problem: since 1 has been either it doesnt matter which or there is a way to tell them apart.

 

[Duke Leto]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

Suppose further that the two clones wouldn't explode. What then?
EB

Suppose pigs could fly. Suppose I had Infinity Dollars. Suppose ryan had the slightest idea what he was talking about.

The scenarios you describe are by definition totally impossible. You might as well ask what it would it be like if 1 + 1 made 3 or a triangle had 26 sides.

 

[ryan]

Suppose further that the two clones wouldn't explode. What then?
EB

You don't even need this scenario. The argument is about the composition of each body. The point is that there is a non-physical component. In other words, there is a non-physical difference between the bodies. Where the body is is not suppose to affect the components of the body in this thought experiment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In other words, there is a non-physical difference between the bodies.

No, there is a physical DISTANCE between the two bodies. Any minimal separation is enough to cause the death experience to be limited to the now-deceased member of the pair.

If the mind is physical, that would easily explain why the experience is limited to one skull.
if the mind is nonphysical, why wouldn't you expect some information to transfer between two identical brains?
Doesn't this experiment actually counter your goal?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Suppose further that the two clones wouldn't explode. What then?
EB

So we create a replica of a person by copying one person and projecting this copy into the same position but in a different phase. Like kitty pride of the X-men, or some fairly poorly-explained episodes of Star Trek and Stargate.

We shoot one of the two with a gun that's physically in phase with only one of the two subjects, but visible to both.

What happens then is that the survivor, who saw the gun pointed at him, saw the discharge and heard the bullet hit meat, but remains alive, needs to change his underwear.

 

[Kharakov]

Suppose further that the two clones wouldn't explode. What then?
EB

You don't even need this scenario. The argument is about the composition of each body. The point is that there is a non-physical component. In other words, there is a non-physical difference between the bodies. Where the body is is not suppose to affect the components of the body in this thought experiment.

What if the consciousnesses are not the same, although there is a single physical body? In other words, one body, with multiple consciousnesses interacting with it.

 

[ryan]

Suppose further that the two clones wouldn't explode. What then?
EB

Here is the same post as I made earlier today, but this one has a comma between the two is's for clarity.

You don't even need this scenario. The argument is about the composition of each body. The point is that there is a non-physical component. In other words, there is a non-physical difference between the bodies. Where the body is, is not suppose to affect the components of the body in this thought experiment.

 

[ryan]

In other words, there is a non-physical difference between the bodies.

No, there is a physical DISTANCE between the two bodies. Any minimal separation is enough to cause the death experience to be limited to the now-deceased member of the pair.

If the mind is physical, that would easily explain why the experience is limited to one skull.
if the mind is nonphysical, why wouldn't you expect some information to transfer between two identical brains?
Doesn't this experiment actually counter your goal?

This has been brought up so many times that I now know that I must have really screwed up somewhere because that is not my argument at all.

Imagine they make a clone of you. Then they say that they must kill the clone. You are both in separate but exactly identical environments. When asked which one is the real you, you will both claim to be the original. But only one of you are actually the original. The original and the clone have a non-physical difference. Yes, the environment is different. But the bodies are not the environments, and the environments are not the bodies.

 

[ryan]

You don't even need this scenario. The argument is about the composition of each body. The point is that there is a non-physical component. In other words, there is a non-physical difference between the bodies. Where the body is is not suppose to affect the components of the body in this thought experiment.

What if the consciousnesses are not the same, although there is a single physical body? In other words, one body, with multiple consciousnesses interacting with it.

I am not sure what your question is referring to. What scenario are you talking about?

 

[bilby]

Ok, so, for the sake of the argument (the OP, actually), suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?

If you have them at the same spot they will die immidiately...

... or, a new spot will we be created making them physically possible...... defeating the idea that they are identical.... again.

No, I said "at the exact same spot".

You have two clones, at the same spot, and they are created indistinguishable. So?
EB

Water is incompressible. Createing the two bodies on the same spot will result in an explosion.

It's worse than that, Jim. The copies are identical at the atomic level; every atomic nucleus in the body will undergo instant and simultaneous fusion. The bang would make the Tsar Bomba look like a damp firecracker.

As I said, for the sake of the argument, suppose we can create two clones, the exact copy of some original, and have them at the exact same spot. Suppose further this doesn't make them explode. Everything looks the same to both but they can't interact with each other. Now, one of them is sentenced to death.

Then what?
EB

Anything you like. Once you suspend physical law, all possibilities are equally reasonable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Imagine they make a clone of you. Then they say that they must kill the clone. You are both in separate but exactly identical environments. When asked which one is the real you, you will both claim to be the original. But only one of you are actually the original.

Of course, we will also give the same answer if both of us are clones. So the idea that one is the original is not critical to your argument.
Or, your thought experiment will not allow anyone to distinguish between the three (original, copy, copy).

The original and the clone have a non-physical difference.

But how does this argue leap to an assumption that the consciousness is the non-physical difference?

How's this. Please consider your thought experiment, but also assume at the beginning that the mind IS merely the artifact of the processes in the physical brain.
How does your thought experiment turn out any differently?

 

[bilby]

No, there is a physical DISTANCE between the two bodies. Any minimal separation is enough to cause the death experience to be limited to the now-deceased member of the pair.

If the mind is physical, that would easily explain why the experience is limited to one skull.
if the mind is nonphysical, why wouldn't you expect some information to transfer between two identical brains?
Doesn't this experiment actually counter your goal?

This has been brought up so many times that I now know that I must have really screwed up somewhere because that is not my argument at all.

Imagine they make a clone of you. Then they say that they must kill the clone. You are both in separate but exactly identical environments. When asked which one is the real you, you will both claim to be the original. But only one of you are actually the original. The original and the clone have a non-physical difference. Yes, the environment is different. But the bodies are not the environments, and the environments are not the bodies.

When asked which one is the real you, you will both claim to be the original*. And you will both want the other guy to be the one who gets the bullet.

Each brain is conscious. No brain has any ability to directly experience a consciousness other than its own. This remains true no matter how similar the brains may be; The two brains may be having identical thoughts, but they cannot ever know this, because consciousness is a property of the physical brain, and one brain cannot experience the consciousness of another. I can imagine how you probably feel, what you are probably thinking, and what your experiences and memories might well be; But my brain can only actually experience my own consciousness.

Identity is an illusion; Continuity of identity doubly so. You have memories of yesterday, but no way to tell whether those memories represent something real. This is true for both the original and the copy in the thought experiment. Both are equally correct to assert their priviliged status as the 'real' Ryan.






*Which of you is 'right' is irrelevant - if there is no physical difference between the current states of the two brains, how they each arrived there is un-knowable to the brains involved, and it is purely an artefact of the outside observer's expectation that conscious brains arise incrementally from earlier states all the way back to fetal brain development in utero. We don't usually see perfect replica adult humans manufactured from scratch, but given this method for making a new person as a premise of the thought experiment, there is no reason to expect the resulting copy to differ from the template grown by 'conventional' means.