5 ms·

What is the difference between slowly replacing your cells a few at a time through biological processes, and instantly replacing all of your cells through the t

What is the difference between slowly replacing your cells a few at a time through biological processes, and instantly replacing all of your cells through the teleporter? In both cases, an older version of you is "extinct", meanwhile, the latest version of you does not have any recollection of becoming extinct.

vichu 3y ago
I viewed those questions as a play on the Ship of Theseus. If the ship is completely destroyed and a perfect replica rebuilt elsewhere, is it the same ship? Almost certainly not. If the ship is slowly replaced over time, is it the same ship? As a matter of form or psychological continuity as posited in the question, almost certainly.
- sunaurus 3y ago
  Why do you think those two questions have different answers? For me, the only logical option is that both questions must have the same answer (regardless of what your answer is).
  - vichu 3y ago
    I don't follow your logic. How would constructing a new ship from new materials ever count as being the same as the original ship? At least in the Ship of Theseus paradox, there is the case where you take the old replaced parts and construct a ship from those parts - which is an interesting question, is it the original ship? In this case, the only thing consistent about the ship is the design. Take mass manufactured goods then - are they the same article because the have the same materials?
    - sunaurus 3y ago
      > How would constructing a new ship from new materials ever count as being the same as the original ship? If it's a perfect replica (as you said in your original comment) then by what parameters is it different from the original ship? Sure, cooordinates might be different, but cooridnates can change. If the exact replica switches places with the original, then even that difference would disappear. By the way, I am strictly speaking about this topic in the context of the thread we are in. If a replica is built according to exact blueprints of a snapshot of the original (and assuming no mistakes are made), then why would the result be any different than just replacing one part on the original with an replica part made according to exact blueprints of a snapshot of the original part?
martindbp 3y ago
We replace the cells in our body every few months, correct? The gradual replacement is key to the continuity. I'd be ok replacing every one of my neurons one at a time but not to upload my brain to a computer and then kill myself. To an outside observer the result may be the same, but not something I'd be comfortable with. I know my consciousness is an illusion and I probably "die" every time I go into deep sleep but the key is to uphold the illusion, otherwise why go on?
- sunaurus 3y ago
  But why would the feeling of continuity be broken by an instant replacement? In both cases (gradual and instant replacement), at any given moment, there exists only one entity with your consciousness and self of sense and continuous memories leading up to that moment.
  - lores 3y ago
    It's not a replacement, a collection of atoms is assembled on a remote planet. And it needs not be a single entity, as the thought experiment with the failure to destroy the original body shows.
  - martindbp 3y ago
    I think my point is, maybe there's no such thing as continuity of experience (since we sleep every day) and consciousness itself may be an illusion. With an instant replacement, and also with a large distances, it makes it clear this is not me any longer, but if I replace my neurons gradually with digital components it's essentially equivalent to what is already happening with my brain cells, so it doesn't break the illusion. My identity and consciousness is an illusion and I just don't want to break it. I know that is contradictory and makes no sense, but that's the reason I would not use the transporter.
lores 3y ago
Imagine the "destroy the original" part of the teleportation fails. Is your consciousness still in your original body or on Mars? Certainly, still in your original body. Now the doc is replacing parts of your brain with silicon. It's posited that it makes no difference to your mind. Because of that, is your consciousness still in your body? Very probably. So I'm not following their logic.
- sunaurus 3y ago
  > Imagine the "destroy the original" part of the teleportation fails. Is your consciousness still in your original body or on Mars? Certainly, still in your original body. How do you reach this conclusion? The only conclusion I can reach is that an identical consciousness is certainly in both bodies. (And as soon as both bodies are making new memories, you have a "fork", where the two persons stop being identical)
  - lores 3y ago
    How would that work? Would you control both bodies, see through both set of eyes, think with both brains? How would the ineffable quality that makes you feel like you are you get transported to Mars? I don't think that's a tenable possibility.
    - sunaurus 3y ago
      There is no single "you" in this scenario, there are two distinct persons. One experiences being transported to Mars, the other experiences the transporter failing and them being stuck on Earth.
      - lores 3y ago
        I think we're talking at cross purposes. Me, the body I inhabit, is still on Earth. The person on Mars, who likely also has a consciousness, and is for the whole world exactly the same as me, is still not me, but someone else, because I am on Earth, and I can't be in both bodies. So I will not take the teleporter any more than I will shoot myself.
stickfigure 3y ago
> What is the difference between slowly replacing [...] and instantly replacing [...] Not to be obtuse, but... the speed. Really this is a shortcoming of the thought experiment. Progressive replacement is subjectively more continuous than complete replacement. A better thought experiment would be to feed it out something like: * What if we replaced every atom of you body progressively over 24 hours? * What if we replaced every atom of your body suddenly all at once? * What if we replaced every atom of your body, but delayed by 1s? * What if we replaced every atom of your body, but delayed by 1 day? * What if we replaced every atom of your body suddenly all at once, but moved about 1mm? * *What if we replaced every atom of your body suddenly all at once, but a day later and moved by thousands of miles?"
- sunaurus 3y ago
  What is the practical difference, though? From the point of view of the entity whose atoms have been replaced, I don't think that the speed of replacement has any noticeable effect. And the previous versions are all "extinct" regardless of the speed, so from the point of view of any previous versions, the situation doesn't change either.

vichu 3y ago

I viewed those questions as a play on the Ship of Theseus. If the ship is completely destroyed and a perfect replica rebuilt elsewhere, is it the same ship? Almost certainly not. If the ship is slowly replaced over time, is it the same ship? As a matter of form or psychological continuity as posited in the question, almost certainly.

sunaurus 3y ago
Why do you think those two questions have different answers? For me, the only logical option is that both questions must have the same answer (regardless of what your answer is).
- vichu 3y ago
  I don't follow your logic. How would constructing a new ship from new materials ever count as being the same as the original ship? At least in the Ship of Theseus paradox, there is the case where you take the old replaced parts and construct a ship from those parts - which is an interesting question, is it the original ship? In this case, the only thing consistent about the ship is the design. Take mass manufactured goods then - are they the same article because the have the same materials?
  - sunaurus 3y ago
    > How would constructing a new ship from new materials ever count as being the same as the original ship? If it's a perfect replica (as you said in your original comment) then by what parameters is it different from the original ship? Sure, cooordinates might be different, but cooridnates can change. If the exact replica switches places with the original, then even that difference would disappear. By the way, I am strictly speaking about this topic in the context of the thread we are in. If a replica is built according to exact blueprints of a snapshot of the original (and assuming no mistakes are made), then why would the result be any different than just replacing one part on the original with an replica part made according to exact blueprints of a snapshot of the original part?

martindbp 3y ago

We replace the cells in our body every few months, correct? The gradual replacement is key to the continuity. I'd be ok replacing every one of my neurons one at a time but not to upload my brain to a computer and then kill myself. To an outside observer the result may be the same, but not something I'd be comfortable with. I know my consciousness is an illusion and I probably "die" every time I go into deep sleep but the key is to uphold the illusion, otherwise why go on?

sunaurus 3y ago
But why would the feeling of continuity be broken by an instant replacement? In both cases (gradual and instant replacement), at any given moment, there exists only one entity with your consciousness and self of sense and continuous memories leading up to that moment.
- lores 3y ago
  It's not a replacement, a collection of atoms is assembled on a remote planet. And it needs not be a single entity, as the thought experiment with the failure to destroy the original body shows.
- martindbp 3y ago
  I think my point is, maybe there's no such thing as continuity of experience (since we sleep every day) and consciousness itself may be an illusion. With an instant replacement, and also with a large distances, it makes it clear this is not me any longer, but if I replace my neurons gradually with digital components it's essentially equivalent to what is already happening with my brain cells, so it doesn't break the illusion. My identity and consciousness is an illusion and I just don't want to break it. I know that is contradictory and makes no sense, but that's the reason I would not use the transporter.

lores 3y ago

Imagine the "destroy the original" part of the teleportation fails. Is your consciousness still in your original body or on Mars? Certainly, still in your original body. Now the doc is replacing parts of your brain with silicon. It's posited that it makes no difference to your mind. Because of that, is your consciousness still in your body? Very probably. So I'm not following their logic.

sunaurus 3y ago
> Imagine the "destroy the original" part of the teleportation fails. Is your consciousness still in your original body or on Mars? Certainly, still in your original body. How do you reach this conclusion? The only conclusion I can reach is that an identical consciousness is certainly in both bodies. (And as soon as both bodies are making new memories, you have a "fork", where the two persons stop being identical)
- lores 3y ago
  How would that work? Would you control both bodies, see through both set of eyes, think with both brains? How would the ineffable quality that makes you feel like you are you get transported to Mars? I don't think that's a tenable possibility.
  - sunaurus 3y ago
    There is no single "you" in this scenario, there are two distinct persons. One experiences being transported to Mars, the other experiences the transporter failing and them being stuck on Earth.
    - lores 3y ago
      I think we're talking at cross purposes. Me, the body I inhabit, is still on Earth. The person on Mars, who likely also has a consciousness, and is for the whole world exactly the same as me, is still not me, but someone else, because I am on Earth, and I can't be in both bodies. So I will not take the teleporter any more than I will shoot myself.

stickfigure 3y ago

> What is the difference between slowly replacing [...] and instantly replacing [...] Not to be obtuse, but... the speed. Really this is a shortcoming of the thought experiment. Progressive replacement is subjectively more continuous than complete replacement. A better thought experiment would be to feed it out something like: * What if we replaced every atom of you body progressively over 24 hours? * What if we replaced every atom of your body suddenly all at once? * What if we replaced every atom of your body, but delayed by 1s? * What if we replaced every atom of your body, but delayed by 1 day? * What if we replaced every atom of your body suddenly all at once, but moved about 1mm? * *What if we replaced every atom of your body suddenly all at once, but a day later and moved by thousands of miles?"

sunaurus 3y ago
What is the practical difference, though? From the point of view of the entity whose atoms have been replaced, I don't think that the speed of replacement has any noticeable effect. And the previous versions are all "extinct" regardless of the speed, so from the point of view of any previous versions, the situation doesn't change either.