3 ms·

Hogwash. > If a physically identical clone of you were created, there would be no scientific distinction between you and the clone More hogwash. The moment

Hogwash. > If a physically identical clone of you were created, there would be no scientific distinction between you and the clone More hogwash. The moment such a cloning happens, you'd become two distinct individuals and would immediately diverge into having separate experiences. Science would not at all consider you the same thing. > For that matter, we can't answer scientifically why your consciousness is bound to you and not the clone, or to you and not some other person or animal. C'mon, are you for real with this. Science would say there are no two distinct and separate consciousnesses. And we very well know consciousness is bound to your brain. > I think it's safe to say that, as science is defined today, there will never be a scientific explanation for the binding of mind to matter. I think it's safer to say you don't really understand science if you actually believe that.

banned_man 18y ago
More hogwash. The moment such a cloning happens, you'd become two distinct individuals and would immediately diverge into having separate experiences. Science would not at all consider you the same thing. I'm talking about one time slice: the moment at which the cloning took place. You can argue that a zero-width time slice doesn't really exist, but we're in "meta-science" (which is philosophy and not science) here. For that matter, there's no such thing as a pure kilogram of iron. Two seemingly "identical" objects are almost certainly not identical at the atomic level. My point is that most science operates under the metascientific assumption that two physically identical objects are identical, and while this may be philosophically wrong regarding matters of consciousness, it's a damn good/useful assumption to make when you want to reason about, say, chemical reactions. Science would say there are no two distinct and separate consciousnesses. No it wouldn't. That's scientism, which is inherently speculative. Science says nothing about consciousness. Cognition is a different animal; that can be observed. And we very well know consciousness is bound to your brain. More scientism.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  > Science says nothing about consciousness. Science has plenty to say about consciousness, it sounds like you've been reading too much philosophy and religion and believed what they say abut science. As I said before, read some Pinker. To say science says nothing about consciousness is just foolish.

banned_man 18y ago

More hogwash. The moment such a cloning happens, you'd become two distinct individuals and would immediately diverge into having separate experiences. Science would not at all consider you the same thing. I'm talking about one time slice: the moment at which the cloning took place. You can argue that a zero-width time slice doesn't really exist, but we're in "meta-science" (which is philosophy and not science) here. For that matter, there's no such thing as a pure kilogram of iron. Two seemingly "identical" objects are almost certainly not identical at the atomic level. My point is that most science operates under the metascientific assumption that two physically identical objects are identical, and while this may be philosophically wrong regarding matters of consciousness, it's a damn good/useful assumption to make when you want to reason about, say, chemical reactions. Science would say there are no two distinct and separate consciousnesses. No it wouldn't. That's scientism, which is inherently speculative. Science says nothing about consciousness. Cognition is a different animal; that can be observed. And we very well know consciousness is bound to your brain. More scientism.

gnaritas 18y ago
> Science says nothing about consciousness. Science has plenty to say about consciousness, it sounds like you've been reading too much philosophy and religion and believed what they say abut science. As I said before, read some Pinker. To say science says nothing about consciousness is just foolish.