Death without Dying

[fr0d0]

Wouldn't identical twins show this? (the potential outcomes given identical 'topology').

[Retorth]

So only in the case of identical twins would this be feasible, yea?

[Edwardo Piet]

I suppose for even the slightest hint of similarity with the original, that is possible, but we (as in the outsiders) probably wouldn't be able to tell for it would be far too insignificant.

And what we perceive, and what actually is are of course two different things. Even when it comes to self-perception.

However insignificant it is, it is still a question of actuality here, I presume?

EvF

[LukeMC]

My answer to the question is a resounding no. I think people are making a very subtle fallacy of equivocation when they talk about "the self" "dying" as if it were a living entity.

When somebody suffers complete amnesia, we tend to say "Dorine has forgotten who she is" or "Anthony is suffering a seemingly permanent memory loss". We don't say "Dorine is dead. We're currently waiting for a new person to inhabit her body". I think even the materialists are slipping into a slight dualism when they split the body and "mind" in such a way. Humans are dynamic and often change the way they think and act. They aren't dying inside, they're just changing. The biological machine still operates. There is still metabolism, respiration, reproductory capacities; the only difference is the way their brain works.

When somebody loses an arm, we don't say that they're occupying a new body or that they are a different person. Only that their body is changed. Now, if every single atom in this person's body gradually gets replaced and they are left with a whole new body, is it safe to say that their old body "died"? I don't personally think so. It's my contention that a living person is the physical expression of their genetic blueprint. The body isn't "alive", it is the person as a whole. What I mean to say is that regardless of which precise atoms occupy your body and regardless of what precise thoughts occupy your mind, "you", the person, will continue to live on as the physical expression of your genetic blueprint. If Eilonnwy had a crash and turned Jewish after having an operation leaving her with only half of her limbs intact, I'd still know her as Eilonnwy.

Overall, my personal belief is that if I had an accident and lost all of my memories, I wouldn't in any sense die. I would just change. The personality occupying this body would vanish and be replaced, but I wouldn't call it "death" as the personality occupying this body wasn't an independently living entity in the first place.


___________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT:

Now, if every single atom in this person's body gradually gets replaced and they are left with a whole new body, is it safe to say that their old body "died"? I don't personally think so. It's my contention that a living person is the physical expression of their genetic blueprint. The body isn't "alive", it is the person as a whole. What I mean to say is that regardless of which precise atoms occupy your body and regardless of what precise thoughts occupy your mind, "you", the person, will continue to live on as the physical expression of your genetic blueprint

Just to make myself perfectly clear on this point, ask yourselves the following question: "Is a Hydrogen atom 'alive'?" No, it isn't. And a hydrogen molecule(H2)? A hydrocarbon(CnHn)? None of the component parts are alive. The living entity is the sum of all of these things put together. The body isn't alive, the mind isn't alive. The entity that encompasses both, the physical expression of the genes, the living creature, the home sapien, is alive.

[Retorth]

When the word "dead" or "died" is used in this instance, it isn't in the literal sense. When you suffer a permanent concussion and lose all memory permanently, it is obviously agreed that you are still very much alive. However, the "original" you has "died" in the mental sense, not being the same anymore.

I agree, though, that "dead" perhaps isn't the best word to use lol

[LukeMC]

When the word "dead" or "died" is used in this instance, it isn't in the literal sense. When you suffer a permanent concussion and lose all memory permanently, it is obviously agreed that you are still very much alive. However, the "original" you has "died" in the mental sense, not being the same anymore.

I agree, though, that "dead" perhaps isn't the best word to use lol

I figured it couldn't have been meant in the literal sense, but in any case, to me, dead will always be the opposite of "alive", and in what strange metaphorical sense is the mind said to be "alive"? I haven't posted in a while, so really I'm just being picky about semantics. Any excuse to start typing really

[Retorth]

Haha.. Completely understandable...in any case, as you said, there isn't a proper metaphorical sense for the mind to be considered "alive".

[theVOID]

Wouldn't identical twins show this? (the potential outcomes given identical 'topology').

Not unless they were raised apart.

[fr0d0]

Maybe the question is phrased wrongly then. If personality is lost after brain trauma: Does the essence of 'self' exist solely in a person's memory/ is that what makes us us.

[Retorth]

Maybe the question is phrased wrongly then. If personality is lost after brain trauma: Does the essence of 'self' exist solely in a person's memory/ is that what makes us us.

Excellently constructed, fr0d0. Couldn't have done better myself.