4 ms·

> unless you believe in a transcendent soul as the seat of consciousness, it must be equivalent. That is a big claim considering we have no idea what causes co

• kelnos 6y ago
  > It is however certain that the copy is not you. That's not certain at all, and depends on how we define "you". And, as you say, we don't know enough about consciousness to flesh out that definition. If consciousness depends only on the layout of neurons in the brain (for example), then a teleporter that destroys your body and makes an atomically (quantum-ly?) identical copy at the destination actually does move "you" from one place to another. But if there's more to it than just that, perhaps it doesn't.
• tsimionescu 6y ago
  Sure, the two copies won't feel, see, hear anything in common. But I also don't hear the sounds I heard yesterday, or feel the sand I felt last year, or even taste the tea I tasted this morning. Regardless of what gives rise to consciousness, there is no continuity in physics, every moment is separate, even if it is caused by the previous one. If you copy me, I am not either of the copies, I am the thing that existed for a brief moment while the copies were created. Even if I stepped into the teleporter, stood right there, and a copy emerged 2m away, the one that stood in the pad is no more identical to the one that walked onto the lad than the one that materialized 2m away. There is no known process in physics that could give meaning to that identity. So regardless of whether consciousness is emergent or quantum or computational or whatever we will discover it to be, unless it is transcendental, there is no way to physically define this continuity or give it some special meaning, such that teleportation would be meaningfully different from the normal passage of time, or that perfectly copying an individual could be said to produce anything different than moving them.
  • Gupie 6y ago
    > There is no known process in physics that could give meaning to that identity. I am arguing that we don't know enough about consciousness or about the universe to claim there is no difference between the original and the copy. So saying "there is no known process in physics" doesn't undermine my position. Here is one possibility, perhaps a bit silly, but if we are in a simulated universe, not that I think this is likely, but if we are then each person could maybe have a unique hash. A copy then would have a different hash to the original. Like I said I am not saying we are in a simulation. It is just an example scenario where a perfect copy would not be the same as a move.
    • tsimionescu 6y ago
      Sure, there is always the possibility of new physics being discovered. But we know A LOT about the universe, and the fact that we can explain so much about how things work, from the atomic to the galactic level, without any kind of a time-stable identity being necessary does suggest that we shouldn't hold our breath hoping for one to be discovered. Also note, a hash or a mind in a higher-level universe is exactly a transcendent soul: it transcends what we call physical reality (or it transcends 'the simulation' in that story). Just because it's framed in scientific concepts doesn't make it any more or less scientific than Brahman or Christian souls.
      • swayvil 6y ago
        "know a lot" and "ignorance" resemble each other in that there are few unsolved puzzles in view.
      • Gupie 6y ago
        Yes, we know a lot, but we don't understand consciousness or even why the universe exists at all. You are probably right, there is unlikely to be a necessity for a "time-stable identity". But who knows, as Lord Kelvin said 1901 “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now"!