dualism and subjectivity

Post Reply New Topic

Just a thought experiment.

Let's say there's a perfect physical copy of you, everything from DNA to brainwaves to memories. There is no physical difference between you, except for the space that you occupy, which can easily be rearranged so that you occupy one another's space. Why are you one and not the other?

Why is it today and not yesterday? Why are you the person that you are, and not William Shakespeare or Jesus of Nazareth or Hilary Clinton?

Still with our perfect physical copy... let's say it was possible to cut your body in half, down the center, and still keep the halves of your body alive, then do the same for your perfect copy, and swap sides with them, so your left half was attached to their right, and vica versa. Unlikely but theoretically possible. Which one is you, now? Does it matter?

You have subjectivity because you are distinct, you might say a "unique one." But what is the "you" that is? Is it non-physical? If so, what does it mean to be a "non-physical" entity?

Spacial position is important as each space is subject to a different set of events which change organisms.

The two "copies" have different histories. They have taken different paths through the space-time continuum and have different memories.

That is why total duplication is impossible.

ruveyn

that's like a half dozen or more distint questions - if its the nature of subjectivity you're interested in (what makes you you etc) then I find Jacques Lacan's work the best on the subject. Zizek is prett much the final word on Lacanianism so he's worth a read, tough to grasp but proportionally rewarding.

you are you because the conciousness and thoughts come from the organic lump that is your brain.

if you were a rock you wouldnt be pondering on such ideas. neither would you if you were a tree or a cat.

this entire issue did not exist at all 2 million years ago. neither did god, for that matter, hehehehe
i always wondered about that, why god sat around w dinosaurs and stuff for aeons, untill he thought "Wait a second! why dont i create something that looks and thinks like me!"

It's pretty obvious that God's method of punishing humans with floods and scourges and all sorts of other rather nasty techniques indicates that He is a dinosaur.

You and your copy may not be different in the tiny moment you're separing one and another, but you will be different a few secondes later because of the difference of experience of this few seconds. Don't know if I make myself clear.

the only thing I know of you can slice and dice and get copies is the flatworm...

Experiences with your outside world literally shape the 'wiring' in your brain. Unless you were perfectly synced, eventually the brains would differ.

Besides, I share to Doritos with enough people as it is, without adding one more...

*golf claps*

Well, let's see.
1) I am myself(a tautology)
2) This other being is another being, despite whatever similarities it has.
3) I am not beings that are other than myself. (basically another tautology)
4) Therefore, I am not this other being

The only questionable premise might be 2, and it really is not that questionable.


Well, if time is an ordering between temporal states, and one set of temporal states separates us between today and yesterday, then the fact that this different exists is all that is necessary.

Well, if I am myself, then I cannot be the other people. I cannot not be myself though, because I am myself is a tautology, so I don't really see a proper basis for the question.


It really does not matter at this point actually. I mean, identity is partially just our own little tracking device, but I doubt there is an ontological foundation for identity and at this question there is a basic breakdown in the intuition anyway.


Well, in a sense I am non-physical, however, I am quite physical. The physicality emerges from the non-physicality in a way that I would also think is relatively non-ontological, as in there is no spirit or anything like that. I am a "unique one" precisely because there is no ontology above me planning me, and because in as much as I perceive the world, I will things to happen according to that will and the things I will are by nature unlike the things willed by any other being, even my clone.

The concept of "you" is ill-defined. It's just an evolved idea that allows us to function socially. (Perhaps identity is, also.) It's a mistake to assume that it can be well defined by physical considerations. (And it didn't develop (evolve) under circumstance where physical duplication was a factor.)

And I think the non-physical attribution (of "you-ness") is just a mirage created the by rational brain trying to interpret a hard-wired, fiat concept in a logical way. The concept isn't in our brains because it fits into a logical framework with every other concept. It only bothers to make sense in situations where it commonly needs to.

Which is why "Scotty, beam me up" is suicide.

Hume believed the self was a patchwork of impressions and memories. He did not believe there is a constant, continuous self. The self is in illusion not unlike a motion picture. A series of separate individual stills are interpreted by our brains as a continuous unbroken steam of perception. A useful illusion, but an illusion never the less.

ruveyn