http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Topics.aspx?TopiCode=Meta

I found a great collection of resources that covers a lot of the material that has been discussed on this forum.

One of my favorites: If someone is identically duplicated down to the last atom, and given all the experience and knowledge of the original, why wouldn't they be the same person as the original?

Was someone the same person 10 minutes ago that they are now? Metaphysics philosophers have grappled with it for ages. :shrug:

These types of questions will always boggle the minds of those whom turn to philosophy and meta-xxx for truth.

Q: If someone is identically duplicated down to the last atom, and given all the experience and knowledge of the original, why wouldn't they be the same person as the original?

A: Because they occupy non-overlapping positions in space.


Q: Was someone the same person 10 minutes ago that they are now?

A: If by "same person" you mean identical then no. The structure of a person now and 10 minutes ago are different; hence, not identical. If by "same person" you mean same instance of a human then the answer is yes.

Very interesting site. It might have a better audience in the General Philosophy subforum, however, since the site deals with philosophy in general -so I'll move it there.

OK with me. I wondered about that when I posted. However I'm interested in discussing the concept of "soul" which is covered under the metaphysical field of ontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology).

I think most people would agree on the concept of "soul", but disagree on what happens when the body dies. It is the logical proposition that religions are based on.

Even atheism falls in the field on ontology. It seems atheists base their perception of reality only on observed claims (a very concrete postmodernist view I might add):


postmodernism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism) (which holds that facts are fluid and elusive, so that we should focus only on our observational claims).

These types of questions will always boggle the minds of those whom turn to philosophy and meta-xxx for truth.

Q: If someone is identically duplicated down to the last atom, and given all the experience and knowledge of the original, why wouldn't they be the same person as the original?

A: Because they occupy non-overlapping positions in space.

W: good answer

---------------------------------

Q: Was someone the same person 10 minutes ago that they are now?

A: If by "same person" you mean identical then no. The structure of a person now and 10 minutes ago are different; hence, not identical. If by "same person" you mean same instance of a human then the answer is yes.

W: Supposedly we are travelling through space so what is "reference = 0" for our speed?

---------------------------------

Another point, without objects, space is meaningless.

Another point, without objects, space is meaningless.

Is it really? We are now learning that space is not really just 'space' but a composition of zero-point energy. So space is actually a substance with properties, maybe even regardless of any objects within it.

by the way, cool site, thanks

"Space is actually a substance with properties," ah hah, just as I've been saying regarding gravitational time dilation during the Creation.

W: Supposedly we are travelling through space so what is "reference = 0" for our speed?

I don't understand the question. Can it be ellaborated upon?



Another point, without objects, space is meaningless.


Meaning is the relationship between of two or more variables. If 2 points of space are devoid of object information they still have a relationship between themselves. A single point of space of course has the potential to represent a wide variety of information; hence, it is made up of constituent components that have relationships with each other.

In fact there may be only one way to achieve absolute meaningless-ness. All variables have to be removed. In other words... the complete absence of anything. That is however something that doesn't appear to be real so the best that can be done is to achieve relative meaningless-ness where relationships between variables are removed and the variables are meaningless relative to each other but quite meaningful otherwise.

One of my favorites: If someone is identically duplicated down to the last atom, and given all the experience and knowledge of the original, why wouldn't they be the same person as the original?

They would be, and it wouldn't even take that accurate a duplication. It assumes every atom is critical to our personality, which is not the case.

They would be, and it wouldn't even take that accurate a duplication. It assumes every atom is critical to our personality, which is not the case.

I disagree. With strengthening support for modern quantum ideas, even the tiniest divisible unit could be potentially critical to our personality. Also, if two exact copies exist in two different points in space, then they are not the same, and will act differently according to even the slightest difference.

Think of the butterfly/snowball effect. The probable location or state of the smallest particle has an effect on your actions with gaining momentum as time passes. At first, it is unnoticable. But as time progresses, its interaction spreads outwards and effects more and more.

Is it really? We are now learning that space is not really just 'space' but a composition of zero-point energy. So space is actually a substance with properties, maybe even regardless of any objects within it.

by the way, cool site, thanks

You're quite welcome. According to some of the philospophers, a universe completely void of objects is meaningless space.

They would be, and it wouldn't even take that accurate a duplication. It assumes every atom is critical to our personality, which is not the case.

So the question becomes, what physical conditions must be met before we could say someone is "resurrected", especially if they were creamated by fire.

Would it require reassembly of the atoms that existed prior to death? Those atoms change over time don't they? So which atoms are essential?

Those of us that believe in religion, believe that a "soul" completes the accounting.

Second point: When does a person become a person. Many of us in the world believe it begins at conception. I think everyone could agree that a "person" exists the day they are born, so let's go from that reference point. An eight pound baby with a brain that isn't fully developed is a person. Hence, personhood is not necessarily dependent on brain function.

I don't understand the question. Can it be ellaborated upon?




Meaning is the relationship between of two or more variables. If 2 points of space are devoid of object information they still have a relationship between themselves. A single point of space of course has the potential to represent a wide variety of information; hence, it is made up of constituent components that have relationships with each other.

In fact there may be only one way to achieve absolute meaningless-ness. All variables have to be removed. In other words... the complete absence of anything. That is however something that doesn't appear to be real so the best that can be done is to achieve relative meaningless-ness where relationships between variables are removed and the variables are meaningless relative to each other but quite meaningful otherwise.

Quite good. So along those lines a universe void of objects has no meaning. Correct?

"Space is actually a substance with properties," ah hah, just as I've been saying regarding gravitational time dilation during the Creation.Yes, dear space is a …substance…just as you said all along.

Space is a thing.
A fabric, if you will.
A sheet over…?

Anyways continue posting those deep insights into reality.
I am constantly seduced by your wit and intellect and your countenance – if that is indeed you – is no less appealing.

Such “men”, as you, deserve eternal life.

I don't deserve eternal life, but I have recieved it, thank God.

Why don't you start a new thread about the Creation of the Univese and Gravitational Time Dilation? It would be a great thread.

Quite good. So along those lines a universe void of objects has no meaning. Correct?

Nope. A universe void of objects still has plenty of relationships. In other words it is full of meaning. If however a universe void of objects is compared to the idea of an object then there is no meaning (that's just relative).

Really for the universe to have absolutely no meaning at all, it would have to br removed in its entirety. Then you're left with the idea of a universe and if its compared to whatever is outside of our universe then it is meaningless (but again thats relative becuase what's outside our universe is full of meaning otherwise). Of course there is the alternative of removing everything (the universe and beyond) and you are left with nothing. That is the real objective meaningless; however, 'nothing' as a real absence of anything doesn't seem to exist so its likely not achievable.

I don't understand life, but I have recieved it...

The above modification is far more accurate in your case.

Nope. A universe void of objects still has plenty of relationships. In other words it is full of meaning. If however a universe void of objects is compared to the idea of an object then there is no meaning (that's just relative).

Really for the universe to have absolutely no meaning at all, it would have to br removed in its entirety. Then you're left with the idea of a universe and if its compared to whatever is outside of our universe then it is meaningless (but again thats relative becuase what's outside our universe is full of meaning otherwise). Of course there is the alternative of removing everything (the universe and beyond) and you are left with nothing. That is the real objective meaningless; however, 'nothing' as a real absence of anything doesn't seem to exist so its likely not achievable.

It really doesn't matter to me one way or another, but several philosophers through history say that space and matter are meaningless unless they both exist at the same time.

Obviously you can't have matter without space, but the converse is also true, whereby both are interwoven with time, and hence they all three physically affect each other, as in the theory of relativity.

Was someone the same person 10 minutes ago that they are now? Metaphysics philosophers have grappled with it for ages. :shrug:
A shame that they didn't have access to quantum theory.. They still ignore it.. (many/most)
(Philosophy is naturally limited in scope. Philosophers 'practice' nothing but structured, rational, logical mental masturbation.. At least a Buddhist DOES the experiment of meditation, finds 'value' or not ib 'experience'... Philosophers 'talk' about it.)
*__-

A shame that they didn't have access to quantum theory..


Quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)doesn't explain everything:


The modern world of physics is notably founded on two tested and demonstrably sound theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics —theories which appear to contradict one another. The defining postulates of both Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory are indisputably supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidence. However, while they do not directly contradict each other theoretically (at least with regard to primary claims), they are resistant to being incorporated within one cohesive model. Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics.

I ask my questions again:

So the question becomes, what physical conditions must be met before we could say someone is "resurrected", especially if they were creamated by fire?

Would it require reassembly of the atoms that existed prior to death? Those atoms change over time don't they? So which atoms are essential?

Is personna defined by function or by form? I understand that experiential memory is involved as well.

A shame that they didn't have access to quantum theory.. They still ignore it.. (many/most)
(Philosophy is naturally limited in scope. Philosophers 'practice' nothing but structured, rational, logical mental masturbation.. At least a Buddhist DOES the experiment of meditation, finds 'value' or not ib 'experience'... Philosophers 'talk' about it.)
*__-

lol...

An uninformed opinion at best.

Three errors:

Experimentation can, and indeed does get done, by exercising logic.

All Quantum Mechanical theories are "...structured, rational, logical.." constructs. Interestingly, all QM models owe their very existence to the kind of "mental masturbation" you deride.

'Value' is never "found", only given.

So the question becomes, what physical conditions must be met before we could say someone is "resurrected", especially if they were creamated by fire.

Would it require reassembly of the atoms that existed prior to death? Those atoms change over time don't they? So which atoms are essential?

Those of us that believe in religion, believe that a "soul" completes the accounting.

Second point: When does a person become a person. Many of us in the world believe it begins at conception. I think everyone could agree that a "person" exists the day they are born, so let's go from that reference point. An eight pound baby with a brain that isn't fully developed is a person. Hence, personhood is not necessarily dependent on brain function.

That is a fascinating question. To address RoyLennigan's complaint, think about all the cells that die in your body every day, think about how your personality changes when you get a paper cut (not much). Think about how one can kill brain cells drinking alcohol, and still be themselves after a recovery period.

I also assert that it wouldn't take the same atoms to reconstruct you, only similar atoms in similar states of spin and charge. Does the transporter in star trek beam those same atoms across space? ...Or does it just scan you and reconstruct from available materials? In this sense, the crew of the Enterprise dies and resurrects every time they transport.

This subject has been addressed in the books of Kurzweil, pertaining to robots. He suggests that scanning a brain and replicating it will become possible in the future. Brain scanning is already highly developed, we can assume it's resolution will only get better.

Personhood never happens. Although a replicated you could be identical to you, and could be treated the same by society, even attain legal rights, these things are artificial human concepts having no basis in reality. We have always been machines in an environment, machines who are themselves an environment. Being and environment are the same thing.

Isn't it interesting that atheistic science supports the idea that resurrection is not only possible in some mystical sense, but a likely outcome of technology.

It really doesn't matter to me one way or another, but several philosophers through history say that space and matter are meaningless unless they both exist at the same time.

It's a good thing we test objective ideas against reality rather than philosophy :).



Obviously you can't have matter without space, but the converse is also true, whereby both are interwoven with time, and hence they all three physically affect each other, as in the theory of relativity.

Regardless of which components may or may not be able to exist without the others, IF any component was able to exist in it's own, it still has relationships (i.e. meaning). I have a sneaky suspicion the philosophers in question are redefining meaning as "Relationships between variables that WE care about". Space, matter, and time are required for human existence therefore I can see the philosophers attributing value to the resulting meaning.

It's a good thing we test objective ideas against reality rather than philosophy :).

Do you consider something real ONLY if it can be tested?

A definition like that puts artificial limits on reality, as though man is fully capable NOW. This would imply that man has both the intelligence and the resource to perform the test, which he does not have currently, but the envelope gets larger over time.

Case at point: flat earth vs. round earth theory in the 1400s.

Personhood never happens. Although a replicated you could be identical to you, and could be treated the same by society, even attain legal rights, these things are artificial human concepts having no basis in reality. We have always been machines in an environment, machines who are themselves an environment. Being and environment are the same thing.

Process must be included in the definition as well, according to the ontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) resources. There can never be two "yous" even with a perfect physical reconstruction. The old "you" must die before the new "you" can live. To think otherwise breaks the physical laws as we know them.

Soul completes the accounting work. Atheism and religion can agree on this point, yet disagree on whether the soul continues to exist after death. Even the definition of existence is debatable without a religious view.

Speaking of ontology, here are the thoughts from some of the philosophy heavyweights:

http://www.formalontology.it/section_4.htm

I would imagine it would be quite difficult for the average atheist and theist to agree on a definition of "soul" - I'm sure there are some that would agreee though, a pagan and a deist might.

Anyway, re: replicating a person. I tend to think of a person as not only the entity encapsulated within the atomic structure that could be reproduced, but also, in the mode of taoist ideology, as the entity AND the interaction of the entity with the world around it - the "story" so to speak.
And following crunchy cat on the idea of the two physical objects not being able to occupy the same space, it seems impossible for both entities to experience the same relationship to the world unless there are somehow two "mirror" worlds and two "mirror" people which are identical, because two individuals can't have the same experiences at the same time as individuals, even though they could as a group. In other words, if you have two instances of the same person and restrict their observations to the group, you could say they were the same - but allowing them seperate egos would by definition make them different people, because "you" can't be "I". Just a thought.

P.S. "value" is only found and never just given - if you fit into another philosophical bent (I don't, but I also don't think that that particular question has an answer that is sure).

Do you consider something real ONLY if it can be tested?

A definition like that puts artificial limits on reality, as though man is fully capable NOW. This would imply that man has both the intelligence and the resource to perform the test, which he does not have currently, but the envelope gets larger over time.

Case at point: flat earth vs. round earth theory in the 1400s.

I consider something real if reality agrees. The point I was making is that reality is the authority on what is real... not philosophy.

Process must be included in the definition as well, according to the ontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) resources. There can never be two "yous" even with a perfect physical reconstruction. The old "you" must die before the new "you" can live. To think otherwise breaks the physical laws as we know them.

Soul completes the accounting work. Atheism and religion can agree on this point, yet disagree on whether the soul continues to exist after death. Even the definition of existence is debatable without a religious view.

Speaking of ontology, here are the thoughts from some of the philosophy heavyweights:

http://www.formalontology.it/section_4.htm
Perhaps there was never any individual 'you' in the first place. I think that 'you' are a complex assembly of materials and processes that changes the natural state of the local universe. That specific change is what we call 'you'. The experience we have is because it is almost a completely closed system (our mind). So if we were to break free of the limits of our mind, we would experience the universe through all of time in one eternal moment without duration.

cole grey,

This sidebar should perhaps properly be a different thread entirely, but...

It's interesting to not how on the matter of 'value', the two of us are diametrically opposed:



...
P.S. "value" is only found and never just given - if you fit into another philosophical bent (I don't, but I also don't think that that particular question has an answer that is sure).



...

'Value' is never "found", only given.

lol...
Your sputtering 'non-reply' only indicates your own ignorance of QM and your lack of understanding of the meaning of my response.
Educate yourself on the subject, and we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.


'Value' is never "found", only given.
Bumpersticker horseshit masquerading as 'wisdom'.
Educate yourself, live some years, and 'wisdom' just might be yours too, to share..

Your sputtering 'non-reply' only indicates your own ignorance of QM and your lack of understanding of the meaning of my response.
Educate yourself on the subject, and we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.


Bumpersticker horseshit masquerading as 'wisdom'.
Educate yourself, live some years, and 'wisdom' just might be yours too, to share..

lol

Oooh, resorting to ad hominem.... the last resort of the truly ignorant.

I consider something real if reality agrees. The point I was making is that reality is the authority on what is real... not philosophy.

That's kind of like saying round is defined by roundness. So can something be real (based on reality) without being logical (based on philosophy)?

What is reality?

example: the square root of negative one is not a real number, but it works for describing sinusoidal phenomina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

So is it real or not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

Electrical engineering depends on the square root of -1.

It is used to very precisely account for real phenomena though the number itself is imaginary. It completes the accounting for sinusoidal phenomena, in the same sense that "soul" completes the accounting for life.

That's kind of like saying round is defined by roundness. So can something be real (based on reality) without being logical (based on philosophy)?

Excellent point here Woody.
CC's 'definition' (sic) was equivocation, at best.





...
Electrical engineering depends on the square root of -1.

It is used to very precisely account for real phenomena though the number itself is imaginary. It completes the accounting for sinusoidal phenomena, in the same sense that "soul" completes the accounting for life.


Again, excellent point.

While I disagree with you on the matter of the 'soul', your point concerning phenomenae not ordinarily considered to be 'real', and Imaginary numbers in particular, is of great significance.
If correlation with what is considered 'real' (seemingly to be limited to the material in CC"s opinion...) is to be the criterion of reality, then it would be the case that all is already understood; there could be no anomalies. Experience alone is sufficient to reveal to us that anomalies abound. This of course, was the ultimate failure of strict empiricism.
In any case, epistemologically speaking, it's clear that it is our behaviour that defines what 'real' is; reality is what we make it to be, limited of course, by the nature of our environment, and our conception of it.

cole grey,

This sidebar should perhaps properly be a different thread entirely, but...

It's interesting to not how on the matter of 'value', the two of us are diametrically opposed:
Sorry, to be confusing - I was merely giving the opposite conclusion as a possibility. I'm not a staunch believer in some sort of platonic system that exists, I have no authority or insight into that right now.

I was just saying that whether "essences" exist to be uncovered or only human created systems which are "given" meaning isn't clear yet. Pointing that out by presenting the reverse of your statement.

You seem too smart to not understand that these things discussed here are in the realms of the humanities and not the sciences for a reason. We probably aren't as diametrically opposed as many people would be.

Yet when you say, "reality is what we make it to be", I have to disagree because a perception does not make an objective reality, only a personal one. Although, I admit the personal is often more important to situations, unless you are talking about someone thinking they can walk off a cliff and fly around - that situation is one proof that both "realities" cannot be called reality - what a confusing language we use.

Sorry, to be confusing - I was merely giving the opposite conclusion as a possibility. I'm not a staunch believer in some sort of platonic system that exists, I have no authority or insight into that right now.

I was just saying that whether "essences" exist to be uncovered or only human created systems which are "given" meaning isn't clear yet. Pointing that out by presenting the reverse of your statement.


Not at all my good man, you weren't confusing at all.
I just found it interesting that in the context, we both gave opposing views..
Indeed, the question of the nature of "value" in general, is a huge one, and certainly due its own thread.




You seem too smart to not understand that these things discussed here are in the realms of the humanities and not the sciences for a reason. We probably aren't as diametrically opposed as many people would be.

I agree. I imagine, that after some discussion on this, we'd probably end up in agreement.



Yet when you say, "reality is what we make it to be", I have to disagree because a perception does not make an objective reality, only a personal one.
...

I completely agree. This is a major stumbling block to the supposition of an 'objective reality'; if indeed we can even support the idea of one.



...
Although, I admit the personal is often more important to situations, unless you are talking about someone thinking they can walk off a cliff and fly around - that situation is one proof that both "realities" cannot be called reality - what a confusing language we use.

Indeed. Which brings us to the question as to whether or not one can even discuss the idea of an 'objective reality' without having the discussion dissolve down to one of semantics.

I completely agree. This is a major stumbling block to the supposition of an 'objective reality'; if indeed we can even support the idea of one.

Well, I support the idea that there is one describable and objective reality - but I don't think we are capable of describing it with the languages humans use now. I think we need a better phrase than "kind of" to describe the idea of "both yes and no", before we can even think about getting close. And "mu" doesn't seem to be able to be translated properly to be used as a [i]descriptive/[i] word.