Embodied psychological continuity (Locke, Parfit ...); different discontinuous brains-bodies, different discontinuous continuities (i.e. divergent selves). 'Identical twins' are different persons, no? — 180 Proof
You didn't read my answer given previously. — 180 Proof
You didn't reread my answer given previously. — 180 Proof
What makes identical twins different persons? — TheMadFool
Again, you didn't reread my answer given previously. — 180 Proof
1) They have different locations.
2) They change on a molecular level within seconds.
3) Can you imagine having two bodies? — SolarWind
The last question seems to be self-refuting. The "you" refers to mind and not the body. Ergo, it's ok within this framework of identity to have two bodies with the same mind. — TheMadFool
All that you've asked me has been answered, Fool. Read in context, for the purpose of this discussion topic, my meanings are plain and not cryptic.I see no need ro repeat what I've written or expand on it unless the discussion takes a turn that requires it. If you disagree with my statements, then let's gnaw on some bones of contention till we suck the marrow from things-in-themselves. :yum: — 180 Proof
You picked one out of three points and answered it with a counter question. You don't have to answer the counter question to realize that it is nonsense to have two separate bodies. One body is in NY and the other in LA. Can they then communicate telepathically as the same mind? — SolarWind
I disagree.if I print Mr. X, what I'll get is another Mr. X. The two Mr. X's will be identical, mentally and physically. In other words the two are the same person. — TheMadFool
Clearly and specifically, the degree to which those bodies are identical is a red herring. Each body has a distinct point of view; one cannot see through the other's eyes and vice versa. Same with internal "senses"... there's no direct line between the two bodies' thoughts (though if we're talking arbitrary technology, there could be; but that tech is not in play... only the brains being identical is). If what one person sees triggers a thought, the only way the other one can know about it is through the typical communication route.If you disagree, you need to be both clear and specific as to why? — TheMadFool
True, but if and only if Mr X & Mr X are entangled entities ... which classically they definitely cannot be (1); to wit: affecting one does not instantaneously, if at all, affect the other at any distance apart (i.e. Mr X does not scratch his right palm when the other Mr X's right palm itches).In the OP's gedanken experiment, the 3D printer produces a faithful copy of the original i.e. if I print Mr. X, what I'll get is another Mr. X. The two Mr. X's will be identical, mentally and physically. In other words the two are the same person. — TheMadFool
Imagine that 3-D scanning and 3-D printing become so sophisticated that you could step into a machine that scanned the exact position and nature of every particle in your body and then send that information to a printer that could reconstitute a body with the same types of particles in the same positions within the body. Assume that the technology is 100% reliable, but part of the process is the destruction and recycling of the original body. Is there any reason to deny that the person who steps out of the machine at the other end is the person who steps into it. Would it matter if it wasn't the same person as long as they were convinced they were? — Aoife Jones
Each body has a distinct point of view; one cannot see through the other's eyes and vice versa. — InPitzotl
True, but if and only if Mr X & Mr X are entangled entities ... which classically they definitely cannot be; to wit: affecting one does not instantaneously, if at all, affect the other at any distance apart (i.e. Mr X does not scratch his right palm when the other Mr X's right palm itches).
Also, the only (1:1 ratio) "faithful copy" of an original is the original due to (A) quantum uncertainty and (B) intractable computational complexity given any arbitrary time constraint for the 3D scanning –> noise/loss-less transmission –> 3D printing process (i.e. map =|= territory). It is physically impossible – violation of classical locality (Einstein) – for 3D printed "Mr X" to simultaneously be 3D scanned Mr X. — 180 Proof
This statement confuses me. I'm thinking at time T=1, there is A1. Then there's a copying process, and by time T=2, there is A2 and B2. "Up to the point when the copy is created" sounds exclusive, like it's describing T<=1. "The original and the copy" is inclusive, as if it describes T=2. Could you clarify?Up to the point when the copy is created, since both mind and body are identical, both the original and the copy are the same. — TheMadFool
This sounds a little clearer... T>=2. But it sounds like you're focused on states. So it goes something like, A2 is in state S2, and B2 is in state S2 as well. Then time passes, and by T=3 A2 evolved to A3 and B2 to B3. At that time, A3 is in state SA3 and B3 is in state SB3. So you're saying that since A2 and B2 are both in S2, then they are the same person; but at T=3, they diverge into SA3 and SB3, at which point they are a different person.Beyond that, because the expereiences of the original and the copy will differ - the physical environment and mental contents will vary - the two will not be the same person. — TheMadFool
It doesn't. Again you're focused on state and not instances. The ball over here is a different ball than the ball over there, even if their molecules were exact translations of each other. If I did something to one ball, and the other ball was in the evil genius's room, I cannot conclude the state of the other ball based on the state of the one. They are distinct lumps of matter.An analogy might help: — TheMadFool
The causally interconnected workings of a brain is what generates a singular personal identity; and here we have two distinct causal frameworks. — InPitzotl
What is a person? What defines a person? This, I believe, is where we should begin in order to resolve the problem that has you and me in its grips. — TheMadFool
I disagree. John defines water as a substance composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Julius defines water as the fundamental element that is cold and wet. John and Julius's definitions are incompatible and wholly different, but they are talking about the same thing. They're talking about that stuff that comes out of your taps... that thing you find in lakes and rivers, that falls from the sky in drops a lot. John and Julius aren't starting with their definitions; they're starting with a reference. The definitions are where they wind up. This case is similar... we aren't starting with definitions, we're starting with a reference.What is a person? What defines a person? This, I believe, is where we should begin in order to resolve the problem that has you and me in its grips. — TheMadFool
Well let's look at an anomaly. This is sort of old news, so if you have heard it before pardons, but I'll present it as if you haven't.You need to flesh that out for me. It's rather vague in its formulation and liable to be misunderstood especially considering the complexity of the matter at hand. — TheMadFool
...and this can get extreme... here's Ramachandran recounting a case where one hemisphere is a believer and the other an atheist:For example, one patient was observed putting a cigarette into her mouth with her intact, "controlled" hand (her right, dominant hand), following which her alien, non-dominant, left hand came up to grasp the cigarette, pull the cigarette out of her mouth, and toss it away before it could be lit by the controlled, dominant, right hand. — Alien hand syndrome
The impossibility of being 'the same X in two places simultaneously' isn't merely "practical", — 180 Proof
Your reckoning is wrong. Our disagreement should be about personal identity, not what the definition of a person is. This is the point of contention:To my reckoning, the point of contention between us is the meaning/definition of a person. — TheMadFool
Somehow, you're counting two Mr. X's, but you're getting "the same" out of it.In the OP's gedanken experiment, the 3D printer produces a faithful copy of the original i.e. if I print Mr. X, what I'll get is another Mr. X. The two Mr. X's will be identical, mentally and physically. In other words the two are the same person. — TheMadFool
You do understand, TheMadFool, that it's patronizing to suggest that I, a native English speaker and an explicit example myself of what a person is, do not understand the meaning of the 531st most popular English word, right? If you disagree that my slicing your head into 50 pieces might make it a bit difficult for you to remember what name your mother gave you, then please make your point. Otherwise, let's drop this gaslighting act.as far as I can tell, having to do with mind and body while yours is rather "unorthodox", revolving around a "...causally interconnected network..." — TheMadFool
Reference is the act of referring. A definition traditionally is a statement that attempts to describe what you mean. A reference by contrast just points to what you mean.Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "reference" as opposed to definition. — TheMadFool
Square one is perfectly justified: you're counting two Mr. X's then immediately saying there's one of something. Two Mr. X's means there are two bodies; two heads and four feet; to dress them up fancy, I need two top hats, two suits, four socks, and two pairs of shoes (two cummerbunds, two pairs of cufflinks, etc).I, for one, don't mind engaging in speculation every once in a while but your take on personhood runs so against the grain that it has the, fortunate or unfortunate, effect of sending us all back to square one, forcing us to start from scratch as it were. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.