That depends, if you have a lot of gas and shit then you might loose that much. Really. As all the muscles relaxes...well, you imagine what happens. In religion the last breath is visualized as the spirit departing (the death sigh - so to speak).
Arguments for the soul's existence...
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
Well, I think it would be pretty doomed to think that I am only the physical properties. As all physical properties will eventually rearrange themselves to form me again.
If so, would I live again?
And even so, if it is the totality of my body characteristics down to the level of say molecules (or atoms, but I don't think it is so precise), it still shows of an selection process in which something is selected - even if it is selected because of physical properties.
Then comes the million dollar question, "what part of the physical properties would have to rearrange themselves to form 'me'?", in other words, how precise is the characteristics that makes me be me.
First of all they said immediately upon death. Second, solids would be in your pants and 2.6 lbs of gas is a huge volume of gas.
Also an actual scientist would not mistake the loss of shit for a spirit.
Of course not.
Excuse me?? Who is claiming that all physical properties would eventually rearrange themselves to form you again?
Selection process?? I am lost as to the point being made.
And by physical properties I do mean down to the minutest level... the spin of quarks... everything. That is who you are.
The only "you" there can ever be is the one that precisely occupies your exact space and time.
The brain is where it happens (so current evidence suggests) - and as to what arrangement / pattern within the brain gives rise to consciousness and self-awareness, that makes it go "I am me" etc... we don't know yet (or at least I don't think we do). But this does "don't know" is not evidence for some non-material "thing".
It does depend on what level of organization that would be required to rearrange themselves. Actually all small-scale properties do all the time anyway, so I guess it is a lost point. But say that there is a structure of physical properties that stay the same through our lifetime, (and that would not be in the scale of atoms...as they change all the time as all of our cells are fully replaced many times throughout our life, I think the skeleton is fully replaced every 10 years), so there has to be a larger structure that is the same, most likely a larger structure in the brain. Since the size and complexity of this structure is limited (how limited I don't know) it has a good chance of reappearing. And of course it doesn't have to be the same cells or the same atoms or the same quarks in order for that structure to fully reflect the structure that I have right now.
I think it is settled that it doesn't depend on the spin of the quarks and everything, since they are replaced many times under our lifetime, as such there are always different quarks and with different spin etc.
You say that the only "me" there can ever be is the one that occupies the exact space and time, which is interesting.
This would effectively separate me from you (for instance) but...it doesn't take away the possibility that I could have been you. You seem to say that the exact properties of everything in my body is what binds me to my body, so if my body were any different then would that mean that someone else was born instead of me and I would simply not exist?
No, but this pattern, would that be the structure that makes me be me instead of anyone else, or somebody else being in my body instead of me?
how strange
you thinking otherwise appears to be a logical corollary
wait!
i am this
i am that
madness i say
these mad crazy atoms
Earlier in this thread there was discussion obout how the so called soul existed in the heart and how this was disproved by organ transplant and the use of artifical hearts.
I have just found this link to a study that delves into the issue of molecular memories of the donar surfacing into the consciousness of the recipient of the organ.
Allthough I make no claim that this is evidence it certainly is mind opening all the same. [to the possibility]
http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html
I have just found this link to a study that delves into the issue of molecular memories of the donar surfacing into the consciousness of the recipient of the organ.
Allthough I make no claim that this is evidence it certainly is mind opening all the same. [to the possibility]
http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html
just finished reading a few of the case studies and i think we might have something interesting to debate afterall...
First, the same same exact structure has zero chance of reappearing. Even "identical twins" are different... through different memories that arise from never being in the same exact space at the same time.
Second, I think the replacement of atoms is a red-herring... it has no bearing on anything: either you consider "you" to be everything you are at a given moment in time - and thus "you" ARE the changing molecules / atoms etc (i.e. part of what makes you you is that certain atoms decay at certain times and are replaced - and this decay will not be the same in two people etc) - or "you" is a pattern of the physical rather than the physical itself (which I would argue is a property of the physical rather than being non-material).
Either way, the changing atoms, I would argue, is irrelevant.
See above.
How could you have been me? I have always occupied the space I occupy. If you imagine clones... they might have occupied the same space up until moment of cloning... but then they were only 1 person up until that point. From the point of cloning they were 2 people... not the same as they occupy different space / time etc. They might have the same memories and same physical characteristics up to the point of cloning... but they were just 1 person until then - and 2 people after. The clone will never be you, just a person that looks like you, acts like you and with a shared "history". From the point that other person/clone exists, they are their own man, so to speak.
And with regard to you being your body - that includes the brain... so if your body (including brain) was any different to the one you were born with - it would not be you, no. That is why you are not me, nor are you anyone else who is born with a different body/brain to you.
Your pattern, if that is what it is, is unique to your brain structure. It has been generated due to a mix of your genetics and your experiences. I'm fairly sure you can't imprint a "blank brain" with a specific pattern (at least not yet). Noone else can inhabit that pattern. Noone else will ever have that same pattern - as it is built up of experiences generated from being in your space/time.
I spent so much time replying to this that I got logged off from sciforums and my reply vanished (FFFFFUUUUUU....)
Sorry, but here is the shortened version (in no particular order):
1: Are we our whole life? Cause that is what you are suggesting when you say that it is the experiences in our life and our memories that causes us to be who we are and not anyone else. It is an interesting idea and I won't argue against it. Not sure that it is what you meant though - and not everybody will accept that without strong arguments.
2: If my body had blue eyes instead of brown wouldn't I be my body anymore? If my fingers were slightly shorter wouldn't I be my body anymore? Where do we draw the line? Also; WHY wouldn't I be my body anymore if my fingers were shorter? Or if I were missing an atom? Your argument seems not to have logic or reason.
3: The only imprint on my brain that was due to experience that has any value to this discussion is the moment that I became self-aware.
4: Let's have two clones and one original, where I became one of the clones and the two others are total strangers (even though they look like me and behaves like me), what determined that I became one clone instead of the other clone? At that time we would be exactly alike in all matters.
5: According to a qualified guess there has been around 106 billion people as of yet, 6 billion are living right now. There are around 100 billion braincells. These 106 billion people can represent 106 billion variations of brains that each according to you is unique. Also to the list of variations come non-human brains (animal brains so to speak), possible extra-terrestrial brains (the universe IS a big place), chances are that the whole brain doesn't have to be unique to a person but only a part of it. Even if the odds seem ridiculously low for someone to be born with the exact brain, or even the exact body and brain, the possibility is there lurking slightly above the zero region. We all know, if there is a possibility there has to be a solution - that solution would be some kind of selection process that selects which of the bodies that are exactly alike that I would be. If that applies to even one special case in the whole universe then it applies for all (and we know it COULD happen, only that the chances are low).
Also; what difference is there if I teleported myself to the living room instead of just walking there? What if we didn't destroy the original? Let me tell you this; if they ever invent a teleportation device, I would not use it (especially not if they did destroy the original).
Last edited:
Thank you (?)
If that wasn't some kind of compliment:
If the original weren't me, but I was one of the copies generated from the original. Cause the copies should have started to exist just then right? And they too must have an "I", so if I were one of them instead of the original, that is the heart of the discussion (in regard to that specific matter).
Last edited:
I am saying that we are our whole life up to the specific moment in time in question. We are the sum of our consciously and sub-consciously remembered experiences and our genetics.
The short of it is: you are who you are. If you had different coloured eyes then you would be you with different colour eyes. But you don't. You are now as you are now. You will be as you will be.
How do you reach this conclusion?
So I'm guessing your learning of language is irrelevant? Your ability to put coherent sentences together? Your ability to learn? To understand? To remember things?
The defining thing is that "you" is derived from the physical matter of the brain. "You" have different physical matter to the original or to the other clone. "You" are thus different. "You" could not be the other... as they have different physical material.
The two clones are NEVER alike in "all matters" - as you can NOT share the same physical matter.
106 billion people barely scratches the surface of possibilities. When you add into the mix of purely design aspects (i.e. the infinite arrangements of the cells in the brain) the fact that any two brains that DO have identical profiles that they are made of separate matter... it is clear that each person HAS to be unique.
If I build a computer, and then build another identical computer... are you claiming the first computer IS the second? Or are the two computers unique, maybe not in terms of design, but in terms of the material involved (i.e. one component can not be in both computers at the same time?).
Further, you can run the same program on each, but the two computers ARE different.
This reminds me of Star Trek... and all the deaths they cause using the transporter...The way I see it:
A person stands on a teleport...
They copy the person's physical make-up...
The person is killed...
A copy is put together at the other end.
That copy acts and looks like the original... but it isn't.
If I built a computer and used it... and then disassembled it... went to another building and reassembled a new computer out of different parts - is it the same computer as earlier? It looks and acts like the previous one?
We the living, carry on "the soul" of the departed by virtue of what we learned from them.
I also believe that a newly departed person has some "physical energy" that can be detected by us, the living, for a period after their death.
I also believe that a newly departed person has some "physical energy" that can be detected by us, the living, for a period after their death.
We the living, carry on "the soul" of the departed by virtue of what we learned from them.
Nicely put ..... and something we should pass on to others, otherwise we're doomed
Nicely put ..... and something we should pass on to others, otherwise we're doomed
Lmao, I skipped over it.
You said the original would need to be killed, but you are the original and remain the original. So you are demanding your own death. The copy could easily be thought of as an exact twin.
It seems you are talking about personality? How our personality are formed and fixated?
I mean, this does not explain why I am my body and not anyone elses. The specific time in question is the time that I started to exist as myself and not anyone else.
As seen, yes. In other words, there must be something else than the physical that is me. Cause I could be me even if my body were different from the start.
It's the same as saying; you are you because you are you. 1=1. Of course, but why am I me instead of you? Therein is the answer to understanding what I mean by what I say.
Yes, my learning of language is irrelevant, and my ability to put coherent sentences together is irrelevant too - in the perspective of this discussion. Since we are talking about how it came about that I was in my body and not anyone elses.
What is it in the matter that is different? Every electron is exactly, EXACTLY alike, every proton, photon, neutron, is EXACTLY the same, weren't it for the fact that it is in a different position in spacetime. What possibly can be different is the way they are ordered.
I know, I think it's 100 billion (number of cells) ^ 100 billion (number of braincells to make one connection to eachother) ^ possible connections they can make. But since the perfect match can be at the start as well as at the end, the possibility must be accounted for. Cause it is possible, even if it is highly unlikely. It's possible though that the ruling of DNA can limit the number of possibilities though, since the DNA produces order in the brain - and the probabilities that we have taken into account is as if the brain was just randomly assembled. Some similarities exists in all brains.
But what is it in the brain that makes you be you instead of anyone else? Clearly this is something that compares to two persons not connected in a physical way, and as such can't be physical. The reason why I am not you.
Even if the "I" is the same to both of us, there must be something that "selects", so to speak, that I am me and you are you. Even if that is based on all kind of physical properties and positions in spacetime.
In the case of computers, we would be lacking the one thing that is in question here. The computer might have a nice screen that the information is painted on, but where is the information painted that we see. Even the visual experiance is non-physical. Where is the final construct that we see? Where is the color of red? Where is the form of a shape? Unto what is it painted?
On the case of difference. What is the difference that makes me be me instead of you. If the computer is self-aware (yes, that is what is lacking in order for your comparison to be valid) then what would be the reason why one identity is in one computer instead of the other?
Thinking purely rational in this matter might not reveal the answer. Perhaps we can only say that we can't know.
I know what you mean
The way I see it:
A person stands on a teleport...
They copy the person's physical make-up...
The person is killed...
A copy is put together at the other end.
That copy acts and looks like the original... but it isn't.
If I built a computer and used it... and then disassembled it... went to another building and reassembled a new computer out of different parts - is it the same computer as earlier? It looks and acts like the previous one?
only you would know.Thought the initial letters looked like a DNA code so I searched google and found this:
``On the origin of the DNA sequence selectivity of the azinomycins .... 3a, 4, 5 -d(TATTATGCCATTATT)-3, 30, 24, 46. 3a, 3 -d(ATAATACGGTAATAA)-5, 30, 50, 20 ...´´
Just for fun though, I don't think it has any bearing in this case - unless we are extremely lucky.
Last edited: