Problem dealing with death as an atheist

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

Think about it this way: every second, you are dying many times, and being reborn again. The same electrons/chemicals that create your consciousness a split second ago have already reacted. When you die, these biochemical reactions simply stop. Every x number of years, all the atoms in your body have been replaced. Yet, you still think that you are alive, because of the illusion that consciousness is continuous. However, the fact is that you are experiencing death right now, but are not aware of it because your memories interact with the 'new' consciousness that is created every second as metabolic processes power your brain. When you die, metabolic processes simply do not replace the chemicals that have reacted to produce consciousness, a process that you will not even fear.

So let us say that it was now possible to transfer all of a recently deceased individual's memories into an electronic device, and upload these memories into a cloned human form which was raised into adulthood entirely unconscious, would you propose that once the clone was awakened with the new memories it would be the dead person raised back to life? The same person? Not a facsimile...


Whirling Moat

[Girlysprite]

So let us say that it was now possible to transfer all of a recently deceased individual's memories into an electronic device, and upload these memories into a cloned human form which was raised into adulthood entirely unconscious, would you propose that once the clone was awakened with the new memories it would be the dead person raised back to life? The same person? Not a facsimile...

Whirling Moat

I think that you would actually find a lot of different answers from different persons on that. Let's ramp it up a bit: Familiar with the alias problem? Let's say you clone a person, and just before it wakes up you also copy the memories from the 'original'. Clone wakes up. Original is still alive.
Are they both the same person?

[Whirling Moat]

So let us say that it was now possible to transfer all of a recently deceased individual's memories into an electronic device, and upload these memories into a cloned human form which was raised into adulthood entirely unconscious, would you propose that once the clone was awakened with the new memories it would be the dead person raised back to life? The same person? Not a facsimile...

Whirling Moat

I think that you would actually find a lot of different answers from different persons on that. Let's ramp it up a bit: Familiar with the alias problem? Let's say you clone a person, and just before it wakes up you also copy the memories from the 'original'. Clone wakes up. Original is still alive.
Are they both the same person?

I have heard both sides to this argument and I tend to agree with the position which holds that ithe Quale of an individual is nontransferable or reproducible. I think contemplation alone will bring any reasonable person to the conclusion that another body with your memories will not somehow transfer consciousness which is highly subjective and local to another being.

I doubt that the clone with the memories would even function for long with implanted memories...I would argue that there is a difference in recalling something and remembering it..When you remember something you can revisit it and reconnect to the experience..An old song, perfume, place all bring forward memory and actual sensations. The clone would not have these feelings, I am sure this new being would experience qualia in its own way.



Whirling Moat

[chatpilot]

I got over my fear of death when I left the church 17 years ago. I have had several close calls in my lifetime but I feel that the knowledge that we as a species will all eventually share the same fate has made me stronger. Not only has it made me stronger but it has made me appreciate the life that I have now even more and led me to try to live it to its fullest and get the most out of it that I can while I'm here. I was actually more afraid of death when I was a fundamentalist theist who was always concerned with whether I was in good standing with God all the time and what would happen if I died now for instance. The fear of not being worthy and of an eternal place of torment such as hell kept me in bondage. As an atheist death to me has lost its sting, once you realize that we like all living things on this planet will eventually die and that it is nothing more than a natural process you will be more at peace with it.

[diffidus]

So let us say that it was now possible to transfer all of a recently deceased individual's memories into an electronic device, and upload these memories into a cloned human form which was raised into adulthood entirely unconscious, would you propose that once the clone was awakened with the new memories it would be the dead person raised back to life? The same person? Not a facsimile...

Whirling Moat

I think that you would actually find a lot of different answers from different persons on that. Let's ramp it up a bit: Familiar with the alias problem? Let's say you clone a person, and just before it wakes up you also copy the memories from the 'original'. Clone wakes up. Original is still alive.
Are they both the same person?

This argument can be ramped up even more. Lets take a strictly scientific view: All human beings are made from atoms and these atoms are rather commomplace. In otherwords, there are no special carbon atoms in your body. If they were all replaced with some other carbon atoms it would have no effect on either the functioning of your body or your personality.

Now assume the special computer copies your body atom for atom and reconstructs a truly atomic clone of your body. Since every atom is the same, then the brain of the clone would be identical to your brain with every memory and sensation intact. Scientifically speaking this must be the same person as the original. But since, scientifically speaking, one person cannot be in two bodies at the same time, we are at a point of contradiction. One obvious explanation is that there exists another substance which, unlike the commonplace atoms, such as carbon, is in fact unique and cannot be copied. This would resolve the contradiction. Is this the basis of the belief in a human soul?

[Anymouse]

Anyway. I'll do my best to explain my issue:
I'm an atheist and I also have a few problems with depression and anxiety. My problem, however, is that I've recently developed a MAJOR "fear" of death.

To-day is my birthday, that means I get to think about this topic myself. And for a while, (note the time here is 4:10 am US Mountain), it bothers me.

Those that post such things to this question as "think of rotting cabbage" aren't really reading the question: this is a legitimate human and emotional concern by a person who really is concerned/upset/confused by the concept of death and his place in it. "Rotting meat" might be the very thing that upsets. Such confusion and upset cannot be answered with such a pat answer: it is no different than "My answer is x religion." At least the latter attempts to address the real human quality of emotion (regardless of whether that address is correct or not.) Surely the atheistic community could come up with a better humanistic answer which also addresses the real human emotion of confusion/loss/fear?

My father was killed in Vietnam when I was seven. I was prohibited from going to his memorial service; my family thought that at seven, it was an inappropriate topic. They also thought I should not see my father that way. My family was wrong; my mother admitted that years ago. One learns to deal with death by dealing with it, not sugar coating it or hiding it from view. A child's view of death is shaped by the way adults around them treat it. Mine was warped for a long time.

At age twenty-four, I made a fourteen-hundred mile round trip for the sole purpose of visiting his graveside. I spent many hours cleaning up the bronze Veterans Administration marker that had been neglected after years (it took about five days). I came to terms with his death; that opportunity was denied me by others "looking out for a child's interest."

But regardless of anyone's religious views, death is the usual outcome of life, whether it be but a minute or a hundred years. And, many many people have gone through death before me, and were able to accomplish it. I assume that when it is my turn, I won't have too much trouble with it either.

For the religious, there is the goal their religion has afterward (but not all religions have an afterlife either.) For both the religious and the non-religious, there is comfort in knowing you have done, do, will do things that will make the lives of those you touch just a little bit easier, or more loving, now and when you are gone. Perhaps you will still live on in such stories by your children's children's children: "I remember great-grandpa. He was so funny (kind/loving/concerned) when . . ." and there is the true essence of eternal life. It has been said, as long as there is still one person who remembers you, you are not truly gone.

So for to-day, I won't worry about it too much. I will worry much more about how I can enjoy my life and help others to enjoy theirs, be it for only one more day, or fifty more years.

[Napoléon]

Scientifically speaking this must be the same person as the original. But since, scientifically speaking, one person cannot be in two bodies at the same time, we are at a point of contradiction. One obvious explanation is that there exists another substance which, unlike the commonplace atoms, such as carbon, is in fact unique and cannot be copied. This would resolve the contradiction. Is this the basis of the belief in a human soul?

Where scientifically does it say this?

[diffidus]

Scientifically speaking this must be the same person as the original. But since, scientifically speaking, one person cannot be in two bodies at the same time, we are at a point of contradiction. One obvious explanation is that there exists another substance which, unlike the commonplace atoms, such as carbon, is in fact unique and cannot be copied. This would resolve the contradiction. Is this the basis of the belief in a human soul?

Where scientifically does it say this?

Diffidus

If you accept the atomic theory of matter, which is certainly the scientific view, the rest is self evident.

[Girlysprite]

This argument can be ramped up even more. Lets take a strictly scientific view: All human beings are made from atoms and these atoms are rather commomplace. In otherwords, there are no special carbon atoms in your body. If they were all replaced with some other carbon atoms it would have no effect on either the functioning of your body or your personality.

Now assume the special computer copies your body atom for atom and reconstructs a truly atomic clone of your body. Since every atom is the same, then the brain of the clone would be identical to your brain with every memory and sensation intact. Scientifically speaking this must be the same person as the original. But since, scientifically speaking, one person cannot be in two bodies at the same time, we are at a point of contradiction. One obvious explanation is that there exists another substance which, unlike the commonplace atoms, such as carbon, is in fact unique and cannot be copied. This would resolve the contradiction. Is this the basis of the belief in a human soul?

I would say that right at the moment of waking up, they are the same person. Not in the sense that they are one thing, but they are exactly the same, yes. The moment they wake up and start processing things around them in just the slightest different way, they become different. However, the base is still the same.

And yes, I believe that if I were to be cloned in that way, the clone would be the same person as I would be. Only through continued living and amssing different experiences we'd grow apart and become different persons.
The point is that the question 'what makes me ME' is not a scientific one, really. It is more philosofical. And that means that you'll get as many answers as there are people.

[Napoléon]

Diffidus

If you accept the atomic theory of matter, which is certainly the scientific view, the rest is self evident.

You are implying that science suggests we need to have souls, which is completely wrong and disingenuous.

And btw why do you start every post with 'Diffidus'. We are not idiots, we can all clearly see your username at the top of every post, you don't need to repeat it in the post itself every time.