Resurrection Machine

[Woody]

A philisophical question that dabbles in religion and what we currently call science fiction:

From Justin Martyr 1850 years ago On the Resurrection

CHAPTER V.--THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, according to Epicurus, the atoms and the void being indestructible, it is by a definite arrangement and adjustment of the atoms as they come together, that both all other formations are produced, and the body itself; and it being in course of time dissolved, is dissolved again into those atoms from which it was also produced. And as these remain indestructible, it is not at all impossible, that by coming together again, and receiving the same arrangement and position, they should make a body of like nature to what was formerly produced by them; as if a jeweller should make in mosaic the form of an animal, and the stones should be scattered by time or by the man himself who made them, he having still in his possession the scattered stones, may gather them together again, and having gathered, may dispose them in the same way, and make the same form of an animal.

Question: If technology were advanced enough to take the very same types of materials you were originally constructed of and arrange them just like you, would it be you? This has been done with cloning. The question is, can the conscious mind be duplicated in a way so that you are "you" complete with memory in place? If two of you are made exactly alike complete with memory, then who is the real you?

In religion the explanation is simple: "you" are defined not only by the body which is physical, but also by the "soul" which is not physical. Hence your clone may be like you physically, with exactly the same memories, but it does not have your soul, and is not, therefore, "you." The accounting is easy.

How does the science community determine the real "you"?

 

[Cyperium]

A philisophical question that dabbles in religion and what we currently call science fiction:

From Justin Martyr 1850 years ago On the Resurrection

CHAPTER V.--THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.




Question: If technology were advanced enough to take the very same types of materials you were originally constructed of and arrange them just like you, would it be you? This has been done with cloning. The question is, can the conscious mind be duplicated in a way so that you are "you" complete with memory in place? If two of you are made exactly alike complete with memory, then who is the real you?

In religion the explanation is simple: "you" are defined not only by the body which is physical, but also by the "soul" which is not physical. Hence your clone may be like you physically, with exactly the same memories, but it does not have your soul, and is not, therefore, "you." The accounting is easy.

How does the science community determine the real "you"?

If you want to look at an allready established discussion about this problem you might wanna look at Twin Paradox (of being)

I think that the paradox shows that there *must* be something other than the physical. There are no other explanation, there must be some kind of selection process, and a selection process that selects between two different bodies must so be beyond the bodies (or if the selection process takes place within the body then it must know of all other possibilities in order for not two persons to be in the same body). Furthermore this selection process must be non-physical as it makes a non-physical bond between the two bodies (since it knows of both).


One thing is clear, the paradox, and your idea of a ressurection machine, clearly shows that there is a possibility of life after death. Why not?

If they believe that everything is physical, so must we rise if our body does. There isn't even anything that say that the body must be exactly the same. If you were born without ears, wouldn't you still be you?

This begs the question, what is it that makes me me? If we duplicate that particular thing, would that make us be in two bodies at once. How can that be possible? But if it all physical then that is possible. If there is no unique "you" then we can duplicate it.

Cause, if you could be ressurected after death, no matter how long you have been dead, then a duplicate could also be made after the same principles. At least as long as the individual atoms are not the same, but other atoms arranged the same way as they are in the original body.

A question that is necessary here is; are we in the parts, and/or are we in the whole?

 

[Woody]

This begs the question, what is it that makes me me? If we duplicate that particular thing, would that make us be in two bodies at once.

This is where I was headed with the discussion -- what makes you "you"?

The definition must narrow down even closer to the human mind. If you lose an arm, then you are still you - less an arm. If you have a brain tumor, and part of your brain is removed, then you are still you conciously, but your behavior is altered.

There also must be a time dimension to the "you" phenomena. You change and become older over time, but you are still "you".

Then the question becomes, how long are you "you" after you die. When is death of you defined? What about people that have been clinicly dead and brought back to life?

If all bacteria could be removed from the human body, would it decay? Can individual cells be brought back to life? We always have cells dieing in our bodies, but that doesn't change us to someone else.

 

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

Sure ressurection is possible, if you can bottle someones soul

 

[Laika]

A philisophical question that dabbles in religion and what we currently call science fiction:

From Justin Martyr 1850 years ago On the Resurrection

CHAPTER V.--THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.




Question: If technology were advanced enough to take the very same types of materials you were originally constructed of and arrange them just like you, would it be you? This has been done with cloning. The question is, can the conscious mind be duplicated in a way so that you are "you" complete with memory in place? If two of you are made exactly alike complete with memory, then who is the real you?

In religion the explanation is simple: "you" are defined not only by the body which is physical, but also by the "soul" which is not physical. Hence your clone may be like you physically, with exactly the same memories, but it does not have your soul, and is not, therefore, "you." The accounting is easy.

How does the science community determine the real "you"?

This has not been done with cloning, because a clone of me does not share the neural structures that represent my memories, merely my genetic information.

 

[Woody]

This has not been done with cloning, because a clone of me does not share the neural structures that represent my memories, merely my genetic information.

What if the clone can be programmed with all you memories?

What if a neural trasmitter/receiver system can be set up so your thoughts and memories can be shared with your clone's and vice versa? After this is duplicated exactly -- who is the real "you"?

The religious explanation is there can only be one soul per body, hence your exact replica clone complete with memories is not the real "you" because it does not contain your soul.

How does the science community perform the accounting?

 

[Woody]

If you want to look at an allready established discussion about this problem you might wanna look at Twin Paradox (of being)

.

A question that is necessary here is; are we in the parts, and/or are we in the whole?

From your thread:

Living things are not static they are contstantly changing and so if alike they would only remain alike at a genetic level.

Because you constantly change with time the "you" of today is not the same as the "you" of yesterday. Today you are a day older than yesterday, hence the real "you" could be thought of as "right now" -- an eternal present event.

 

[Ibanez]

Pretty much the same thing; if a body was given all of your memories and had its brain constructed exactly like yours, it may act exactly like you, but it wouldn't be you because its not actually your brain. There's nothing to our 'soul' beyond the physical properties of the brain, so there's no way to transport a consciousness from one body to another unless the brain itself is moved.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If technology were advanced enough to take the very same types of materials you were originally constructed of and arrange them just like you, would it be you?

It would be an identical copy of me; completely unique and autonomous.

The question is, can the conscious mind be duplicated in a way so that you are "you" complete with memory in place?

Don't know. I would speculate 'yes'.

If two of you are made exactly alike complete with memory, then who is the real you?

The original would be 'you' and the copy would be an identical 'someone else'.

How does the science community determine the real "you"?

Both the original and copy are equally real; otherwise, my last answer can be carried over to this question.

 

[Woody]

CC said:

Both the original and copy are equally real; otherwise, my last answer can be carried over to this question.

How would anyone know the difference, including you and your exact copy? Who then becomes the real you and who the immitation?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

How would anyone know the difference, including you and your exact copy? Who then becomes the real you and who the immitation?

They wouldn't until the original and copy identified themselves. I suspect long term they could get different hair styles, some tatoos, or anything else to distinguish them (like identical twins might do).

The original would know he is the original and the copy would know he's the copy based on the original's knowledge of where the input and output locations of the cloning device were. The copy wouldn't be an immitation consequently. He would be identical to the original.

 

[Woody]

They wouldn't until the original and copy identified themselves. I suspect long term they could get different hair styles, some tatoos, or anything else to distinguish them (like identical twins might do).

The original would know he is the original and the copy would know he's the copy based on the original's knowledge of where the input and output locations of the cloning device were. The copy wouldn't be an immitation consequently. He would be identical to the original.

but his memory would also be identical (unlike a clone), he would believe he was the original. Both would pass the lie detector test. I suppose it would make a good star trek episode.

In addition, the immitation would believe the original's wife and children were really his, and he would love them just as much as the real one does because his mind would be programmed identical complete with memories, emotions, scars from accidents, etc. He would know everything that only the original knows and no one else knows.

On the otherhand -- a religious person would say they could not be the same because they do not share the same soul. They could indeed have the same memories, the same emotions, and everything the same, but the clone would have a different soul. They wouldn't necessarily go the same place after they died.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

but his memory would also be identical (unlike a clone), he would believe he was the original. Both would pass the lie detector test. I suppose it would make a good star trek episode.

Ahh, I see what your saying. When I used the word copy/clone I was including memory... ever last Atom as per the original thought experiment. I would presume that the original had knowledge that he was going to be copied and that knowledge would exist with the copy. All thats needed for each to know whom is whom is seeing where they are (the in or out of the cloning device).

I could some a big problem occuring if the cloning was not voluntary. Both might believe themselves the original if the original was sedated prior to cloning and both the original and copy woke up in a room together clothed the same way. Definitely a star trek episode.

In addition, the immitation would believe the original's wife and children were really his, and he would love them just as much as the real one does because his mind would be programmed identical complete with memories, emotions, scars from accidents, etc. He would know everything that only the original knows and no one else knows.

Yep.

On the otherhand -- a religious person would say they could not be the same because they do not share the same soul. They could indeed have the same memories, the same emotions, and everything the same, but the clone would have a different soul. They wouldn't necessarily go the same place after they died.

Sounds like another star trek episode in the making.

 

[Clockwood]

A human being is the result of a handfull of hardwired functions and a lifetime of memories. Remove a memory, you change the person in the deepest way possible. A scant few decades of experience was all that separated Hitler and Ghandi.

In the same way, new memories change you as you progress through life. A person dies and is cannibalized one piece at a time as they grow older. By the time you are an old man, everything that is left of what you were as a child could be written on a couple sheets of paper.

Imagine if we erased all memory of, lets say, your wife of many long years. You can't remember any of the experiences that occured between you that helped you grow. Meeting up with her could have transformed you from a bitter and self absorbed individual into a completely different man. Now thats gone... and what are you left as.

 

[Woody]

A human being is the result of a handfull of hardwired functions and a lifetime of memories. Remove a memory, you change the person in the deepest way possible. A scant few decades of experience was all that separated Hitler and Ghandi.

In the same way, new memories change you as you progress through life. A person dies and is cannibalized one piece at a time as they grow older. By the time you are an old man, everything that is left of what you were as a child could be written on a couple sheets of paper.

Imagine if we erased all memory of, lets say, your wife of many long years. You can't remember any of the experiences that occured between you that helped you grow. Meeting up with her could have transformed you from a bitter and self absorbed individual into a completely different man. Now thats gone... and what are you left as.

Interesting. You are not really "you" because of the time dimension. Some religions agree with that philosophy. They say the "you" at the time of death is the eternal "you."

 

[Clockwood]

If the state you are in at the time of death is to be you forever more, it implies some truely scary things. You would be incapable of experiencing or learning or changing. You would be trapped in a single moment for all eternety. Frightening.

I figure that, if there is an afterlife, you continue to change just as you did in life. In fact, free of the limits of flesh and blood and potentially time, I suspect the changes to a person would be far more immense and immediate. Perhaps memory would be rendered perfect, allowing you to remember anything in your entire course of life. Perhaps souls could even share memories and thoughts directly if they so wished.

I do so hope that life continues on out there just as it does here... only under a different sort of rules. Given a million years of experience and introspection, even the worst of the damned might become decent people. Or so I hope.

 

[Woody]

If the state you are in at the time of death is to be you forever more, it implies some truely scary things. You would be incapable of experiencing or learning or changing. You would be trapped in a single moment for all eternety. Frightening.

I figure that, if there is an afterlife, you continue to change just as you did in life. In fact, free of the limits of flesh and blood and potentially time, I suspect the changes to a person would be far more immense and immediate. Perhaps memory would be rendered perfect, allowing you to remember anything in your entire course of life. Perhaps souls could even share memories and thoughts directly if they so wished.

I do so hope that life continues on out there just as it does here... only under a different sort of rules. Given a million years of experience and introspection, even the worst of the damned might become decent people. Or so I hope.

In the christian belief system, believers are resurrected in a perfect body, implying they will already know everything there is to know and there is no need to change. So this would be a big improvement compared to what they were when they died. The resurrection of the unbeliever doesn't come out as well -- they are the same as they were when they died and in the same body with all of it's addictions and faults, and they are incapable of change.

 

[Clockwood]

If god were to strip a man of the ability to change, even if that person is the most evil sonofabitch who ever lived, would be a sin beyone all others. It would be the complete annihilation of free will, the conversion of a living being into little more than a sockpuppet of flesh and bone. And to do something like that to someone simply because they did't grow up christian... Well, this would not be a god I would wish to know.

As for perfect knowledge of all things, I suspect exposure to such a thing would reduce a mind or soul to ashes if such a thing were attempted. Something might still be walking or talking, but it wouldn't be you in any sense of the word. You would have been consumed by the knowledge like a raindrop in a raging sea.

I would like to think that there is something analagous to a universal library in the afterlife. Its infinite in measure and you can have all the knowledge you can lay your hands on, but nobody tries to jam it all into your head at once. As you absorb it, if that is what you choose to do with your time, you change and grow. But there is always more.

 

[Woody]

CW said:

I would like to think that there is something analagous to a universal library in the afterlife. Its infinite in measure and you can have all the knowledge you can lay your hands on, but nobody tries to jam it all into your head at once. As you absorb it, if that is what you choose to do with your time, you change and grow. But there is always more.

The universal library could be in your own mind in the afterlife.

You enjoy learning and there is nothing wrong with that, but what about applying the knowledge? I personally find it more fulfilling to take knowledge and create something with it like art or music.

Wouldn't it be cool if you or I could compose and play music better than any earthly artist, never making even one mistake -- playing any instrument to perfection? Make Hendrix sound like a beginner on the guitar, or Mozart and Beethoven's compositions sound like children's music? Does any of their work even merit a replay in heaven?

 

[Clockwood]

Frankly, no. To be able to do something right the first time and to be able to continue on doing it perfectly with a minimum of effort would quickly sap the joy out of the activity. Its like giving Mozart a remote control with a 'compose' button on it. Press it and, before you know it, you have a new piece before your eyes. Where is the fun in that? What is the point of existing.

I suspect most individuals would willingly place themself in a form that has at least some of the limits of the human form and mind. They might be vastly and unimaginably greater than what we have now, but not to the point where it saps the fun from everything. Some might even take the role of minor gods, using entire planets as their canvases... but I doubt anyone would remain in a state where anything was just a snap of the fingers away.