How "reincarnation" might work?

[robvalue]

It's not me because I am me!? [Multiple fallacy alert]

What the difference is between me and a clone of me is hard to pinpoint, so I admit that the above statement is more of an emotional reaction than a reasoned argument. When it comes to this subject, I find rational conclusions to be very hard to come by. Maybe there is no difference; but that's hard to reconcile.

If we define "me" as just being a physical configuration, then technically it's me, I suppose. But then it's not a constant configuration, I'm a different collection of things from one moment to the next. The link between these different forms is rather tenuous anyway.

If I step outside the science, I hear myself sounding like a woo peddler on the verge of talking about souls. Yet my identity is all I have, so chalking it up as "nothing" is very hard. Tough subject!

[ignoramus]

It's basically the same notion as grandfather's axe. (Ship of Theseus)
He loved his axe so much he couldn't bare to let it go so he just kept changes handles and heads to keep his "favourite" axe in good working order.

If afterlife/reincarnation was even technically possible, as Jorm said, so what, it's all hypothetical.

I once said to a mate that if I click my fingers I can make you eg: Brad Pitt. He said OK, do it. So I did. He said nothing happened. I said it did. You are Brad Pitt.
What you want is to be George's mind in Brad Pitt's body? Now that's just stupid!

[Angrboda]

I think continuity is a core component of self, and here's a quick argument why. Suppose someone were to come to you and tell you that they'd just created you, whole hog, the day before. They show you how they were able to do this and convince you that it's true. You have a memory of having done something bad a week ago, and upon investigating, you find that another 'you', created the same way, had actually done the bad act. Would you still feel guilty for having done the bad act? I think not, because in some necessary sense, that other 'you' isn't the you that you are today. (It's very confusing. But I think we have an intuition that continuity is a necessary feature of self. I think this is because in some sense we 'own' our past actions. They belong to us. If they weren't the product of our current brain and body, we wouldn't feel they belong to us. And a large part of what determines who we are is our past actions. If I hadn't lived the life I had lived, I wouldn't be the same 'me'.)

[robvalue]

That's a good point, yes

[chasbanner]

Thanks all.

AFFT I 've thought about this. It's a sure bet someone (probably human) will eventually try a virtual recreation of a past earth sometime.

mh.brewer passing on your knowledge to younger people might also work as well, in a fashion

robvalue Thanks for the fair shake. I think things are defined by what they do. Water is water because it makes you wet (and all the other physical properties...) A being that does robvalue things (to himself and others) is robvalue.

ignoramus is being hypothetical so important? Is it unimportant if you are not sure (50/50 chance) if a unknown guy may or may not to beat you up next week?

Jormungadar If that "me" was a close enough copy. I would feel guilty because this would have revealed something about my character. it would show i was capable of theft as much as if i had done it myself.
It would prove i was a thief/murderer/etc (potentially at least for now). I guess there might be some distance, mostly a suspicion that it was an "bad" clone.

Remember that in an infinite universe  your history (or just the important parts) can be recreated just as the rest of you can be.

And what if someone convinced you, you were a clone without a past (when you were not really), would you cease to be yourself?

[robvalue]

When it comes to issues of the self, and consciousness, I feel I'm in a paradoxical position. All I actually have are experiences of "being me". Yet my scientific analysis would strip this identity away in any meaningful sense.

I'm left admitting that my subjective viewpoint, and the feelings it causes, are too unreliable to be of much use when determining objective truth. The notion of "self" is most likely just an emergent property of the brain, a way it copes with and processes things.

So scientifically, if you clone me, "I" am both things. Or perhaps, it's more correct to say "I" am not any of them, that it's an unscientific concept in the first place to assign identity for anything other than convenience.

Yet here is my seemingly special personal experience, and it's the only way I have of learning anything. It's really hard to get my head around. I can see how woo ideas develop if you're not careful and rigorous.

[ignoramus]

[Ben Davis]

Except... it's not "you", in any meaningful sense, is it?

Like you say, the idea of the self is a very confusing subject. What counts as "you" is rather debatable.

To be honest, rob, I don't think it is debatable. A modern understanding of neurology makes the answer very clear: it's certainly not 'you'.
'You' are described as an emergent property of your specific brain. Even if every single aspect of your brain was successfully cloned, it would be a copy of your brain and not your brain. Consequently if you were to die, your awareness would not suddenly reawaken on the activation of your clone, your clone's awareness would awaken instead. 'You' would still be dead and an imposter would be in your place, albeit one who is, in every way, under the impression that he is 'you'.

[ignoramus]

Ben, is that you or a clone of you talking? Prove it?

Which one do I shoot? Quick!


(Do clones sweat?) hehehe

[robvalue]

Ah OK, that makes sense. Thank you!

Yes, that reconciles the experience and the science much better.