A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Mercutio]

BTW if this really did happen, the 2 Ian's wouldn't start arguing about who is the copy because they would be intelligent enough to know this cannot conceivably be of any relevance.

I see the 2 Ians heading off for several identical pints...saying "remember when I...er, you...um...we?...nevermind--another pint?"

 

[Interesting Ian]

Er . . .no. I am presupposing materialism!. In my world view one wouldn't get a living duplicate, one would just get a corpse. This is the whole point, to presuppose materialism to see where it leads us.

From the materialist perspective the 2 experiments are absolutely identical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From reading this thread it seems the materialists have denied that that is the case.

No No No! They absolutely have not. They have repeatedly stated that if one gets duplicated you will then have 2 identical selves. Please read the thread.

 

[Interesting Ian]

And I would say, as a non-materialist monist, you might, or might not get a corpse.

Just as if you "built" a working model of the simplest Terran lifeform, and if it "lived", how would you tell if the "perceived-as-physical model" caused life, or if "life" chose to inhabit the (otherwise lifeless) model?

You only might or might not get a corpse if the original is destroyed. Otherwise the logical paradox applies.

 

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would surely accept this offer because after all this duplicate Adam doesn't exist now, so when he gets killed after allowing him to live 24 hours, that cannot possibly make you worse off than you are now. So basically you would be getting $10,000 for nothing, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sure, while condoning murder. [/B]

You could argue that. But could you be so good as to address the logical paradox and forget about ethics

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: A question to Adam and others

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Lets suppose we have the technology to precisely physically duplicate peoples' bodies. Let's imagine that someone were to offer you $10,000 if you allowed them to physically duplicate your body, but that they would kill the duplicate Adam 24 hours after duplication so that he only actually lives 24 hours. Let's further imagine that you never even get to see the duplicate Adam.

You would surely accept this offer because after all this duplicate Adam doesn't exist now, so when he gets killed after allowing him to live 24 hours, that cannot possibly make you worse off than you are now. So basically you would be getting $10,000 for nothing, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I wouldn't accept this offer as I would be a party to murder. Just because the duplicate is a copy of me doesn't mean he isn't an individual human being.[/B]

DD it's a thought experiment to explore the implications of materialism. Talking about the ethical dimension misses the point. If you like, for the sake of this thought experiment, imagine you're a bit of a bastard and you only care about what happens to you and your happiness.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: A question to Adam and others

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Another thought experiment Adam. This is exactly the same as above except it's the original Adam who gets killed 24 hours after the duplicate has been created, and the duplicate is allowed to live. The duplicate will receive the $10,000 and the duplicate will never get to see the original Adam. Of course this situation is precisely the same as the first one although one might not feel that it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This situation would morally be OK. In theory, I would have no problem with this scenario.

The consequences are exactly the same as before!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

You could argue that. But could you be so good as to address the logical paradox and forget about ethics?

Okay then, ethics out the window. You can make a copy of me, give me $10K, and destroy the copy.

However, the other way around is a bit dicey. Now you're asking me to forget ethics and my own personal safety, because you're going to kill me. And if you ask me to throw personal safety out the window, then hell, I'd let you kill me without making the copy, wouldn't I?

~~ Paul

 

[Dancing David]

No No No! They absolutely have not. They have repeatedly stated that if one gets duplicated you will then have 2 identical selves. Please read the thread.

That's right, us materialists have said that an 'exact' duplicate would be the same as the dupee.

 

[fsol]

No No No! They absolutely have not. They have repeatedly stated that if one gets duplicated you will then have 2 identical selves. Please read the thread.

I *have* read the whole thread, for my sins.

From my understanding, materialism says you get two identical selves at time = 0. After that they diverge according to their experiences.

In your experiments you presume that there is one consicousness looking through four eyes. Therefore by your reasoning there is no difference between the two scenarios. The same consciousness persits whichever of the two bodies is disposed of.

Now, as I understand it, materialism says that there are two seperate selves in your thought experiment. The physical processes of the original lead to a self and the physical processes of the duplicate lead to a self. That they are at time = 0 physically identical does not matter. They are two seprarate selves. For this reason your two $10,000 thought experiments are not equal.

In the first the duplicate "I" gets killed, and in the second *I* get killed.

That's right, us materialists have said that an 'exact' duplicate would be the same as the dupee.

But it would not be the same stream of consciousness as the dupee. This means that Ians two experiments would not have the same outcome. Only if there was one stream of consciousness shared between the duplicate and the dupee would that be the case. As far as I can gather that is not what materialism says.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

A summary of your posts for the past 24 hours or so :

But of course this relates to the argument I shall deliver which Adams keeps demanding I give.
...
But let's forget about this for now and concentrate on the question I'm going to ask you and others in my next post.
...
Lets suppose we ... (pay someone for permission to create a duplicate, then kill the duplicate after 24 hours) ... basically you would be getting $10,000 for nothing, right?
...
Another thought experiment Adam. This is exactly the same as above except ... (duplicate someone, then kill them after 24 hours and pay the duplicate) ... this situation is precisely the same as the first one although one might not feel that it is.
...
OK won't be posting again today cos going to have a drink.
...
From the materialist perspective the 2 experiments are absolutely identical.
...
You only might or might not get a corpse if the original is destroyed. Otherwise the logical paradox applies.
...
You could argue that. But could you be so good as to address the logical paradox and forget about ethics.

Ian - what paradox? What argument? You've offered two thought experiemetns, and asked a simple yes/no question at the end. You seem to feel that you've (a) presented a solid argument in support of some claim and (b) presented a logical paradox (presumably arising from the thought experiments)requiring an answer. I can't see either. Could you please take a moment to actually state what this "paradox" is? Are these thought experiments the extent of the "argument" that you'll be presenting to slimshady, or is there more to come?

(One small detail that you need to add to your thought experiments - the original and the duplicate must exist in identical physical environments for the 24 hours, exposed to exactly the same interactions with other physical elements - otherwise they cease being identical.)

 

[ceptimus]

Ian's thought experiment might, in a certain sense, be carried out for real whenever a set of identical twins are born.

I don't know at what stage during or after the pregnancy Ian thinks that consciousness flickers into being in the embryo/foetus/baby. Ian, can you let us know your views on this? I suppose you've discussed this before, but if so, I've missed it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I *have* read the whole thread, for my sins.

From my understanding, materialism says you get two identical selves at time = 0. After that they diverge according to their experiences.

Well materialism can say that if it likes. Nothing to do with my experiment though. Mind you I find it amusing that materialists think that my self will change depending on whether I decide to pick my nose or not. Still if thay want to believe utterly absurd things, then that's up to them.

In your experiments you presume that there is one consicousness looking through four eyes.

This is precisely what I'm not presuming, or even assuming. I'm taking the materialists belief that there will result 2 streams of consciousnesses, and examing the implications.

Therefore by your reasoning there is no difference between the two scenarios. The same consciousness persits whichever of the two bodies is disposed of.

Now, as I understand it, materialism says that there are two seperate selves in your thought experiment. The physical processes of the original lead to a self and the physical processes of the duplicate lead to a self. That they are at time = 0 physically identical does not matter. They are two seprarate selves. For this reason your two $10,000 thought experiments are not equal.

WTF??? For what reason? You have supplied no reason in the above. Materialism necessitates that the 2 thought experiments must be equal. If you deny this then necessarily you are denying materialism.

In the first the duplicate "I" gets killed, and in the second *I* get killed.

The duplicate is obviously just as much you as the original. Otherwise you would never use a teletransporter as employed in star trek.

But it would not be the same stream of consciousness as the dupee. This means that Ians two experiments would not have the same outcome. Only if there was one stream of consciousness shared between the duplicate and the dupee would that be the case. As far as I can gather that is not what materialism says.

You can only say the experiments are not equal if you hold the position that the original is somehow more you than the duplicate. But this is a position that you absolutely cannot hold. Otherwise it's a flat out contradiction of materialism.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
Okay then, ethics out the window. You can make a copy of me, give me $10K, and destroy the copy.

However, the other way around is a bit dicey. Now you're asking me to forget ethics and my own personal safety, because you're going to kill me. And if you ask me to throw personal safety out the window, then hell, I'd let you kill me without making the copy, wouldn't I?

~~ Paul

Well you're holding the position that the original is really you. This is a flat out contradiction of materialism.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

A summary of your posts for the past 24 hours or so :


Ian - what paradox? What argument? You've offered two thought experiemetns, and asked a simple yes/no question at the end. You seem to feel that you've (a) presented a solid argument in support of some claim and (b) presented a logical paradox (presumably arising from the thought experiments)requiring an answer. I can't see either. Could you please take a moment to actually state what this "paradox" is? Are these thought experiments the extent of the "argument" that you'll be presenting to slimshady, or is there more to come?

(One small detail that you need to add to your thought experiments - the original and the duplicate must exist in identical physical environments for the 24 hours, exposed to exactly the same interactions with other physical elements - otherwise they cease being identical.)

Yes Loki, you are correct in your statement that I haven't spelled out the paradox. My intention was to allow people to stumble on the paradox themselves by virtue of thinking about these 2 experiments. If they failed to see it for themselves then I was going to spell it out. It seems that so far people are comprehensively failing to see the paradox generated. All that is happening is that people are thinking that the original is really them and the duplicate isn't. This is of course a flat out denial of materialism.

Will spell out the paradox soon.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian's thought experiment might, in a certain sense, be carried out for real whenever a set of identical twins are born.

If say I had an identical twin brother, and instead of all the totality of environmental experiences that I've ever had, I'd had my brother's instead, and him vice versa, then would materialism necessitate that I am literally him and he me? Apparently so! Does anyone on here, apart from myself and Titus, not appreciate how utterly bizarre materialism is??

And I've just had another thought. What about this whole cloning issue where people think they will literally get their deceased pets back by a clone replacement, or even a young child back by a clone replacement! I thought these people were truly stupid in thinking that they would literally be getting their pets back. But this is what materialists actually believe!

I don't know at what stage during or after the pregnancy Ian thinks that consciousness flickers into being in the embryo/foetus/baby. Ian, can you let us know your views on this? I suppose you've discussed this before, but if so, I've missed it. [/B]

I don't know. Presumably not after the foetus starts moving though. What's the materialist answer?

 

[slimshady2357]

Yes Loki, you are correct in your statement that I haven't spelled out the paradox. My intention was to allow people to stumble on the paradox themselves by virtue of thinking about these 2 experiments. If they failed to see it for themselves then I was going to spell it out. It seems that so far people are comprehensively failing to see the paradox generated. All that is happening is that people are thinking that the original is really them and the duplicate isn't. This is of course a flat out denial of materialism.

Will spell out the paradox soon.

Ah yes, the usual flat out statement with no proof again. Ya, you're right Ian, Materialism definitely says two seperate bodies with two seperate brains should be the same person

And I notice you are still dodging (I think that makes 5 or more times now) the simple question of why you think Materialism has different rules for identity when it comes to consciousness' versus brains. For one of them, location is part of the 'totality of physical facts' and for one it isn't? Who knows, since you refuse to even address the subject what-so-ever.

"All that is happening is that people are thinking that the original is really them and the duplicate isn't."

Well, um yes, they have different bodies..... do you normally think you're the same person as someone who has a seperate body?

They are identical, but seperate a physical fact you like to ignore when it comes to consciousness and yet recognize when it comes to the brain.... hmmmmm I wonder why? Again, who knows? Maybe you'll actually address that point, but I won't be holding my breath

The duplicate brain gives rise to ANOTHER consciousness, that's how brains work under materialism, they generate a consciousness. So the duplicate generates a consciousness, exactly like the first, but not the actual same one, because it's not being generated by the actual same brain.

If you have two projectors showing two identical movies, you still have TWO screens you can watch the movie on! They aren't showing on the same screen.

Damn, gotta go!

Adam

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

Well you're holding the position that the original is really you. This is a flat out contradiction of materialism.

Of course the original is me. And the duplicate is someone else. How does that contradict (whatever definition of) materialism (you are using)?

And I've just had another thought. What about this whole cloning issue where people think they will literally get their deceased pets back by a clone replacement, or even a young child back by a clone replacement! I thought these people were truly stupid in thinking that they would literally be getting their pets back. But this is what materialists actually believe!

No, that is what sad and grieving people might believe. It has nothing to do with what (your definition of) materialists believe.

If say I had an identical twin brother, and instead of all the totality of environmental experiences that I've ever had, I'd had my brother's instead, and him vice versa, then would materialism necessitate that I am literally him and he me? Apparently so! Does anyone on here, apart from myself and Titus, not appreciate how utterly bizarre materialism is??

This is irrelevant, because identical twins are not identical. In any event, you would still be you, but with different experiences. "You" are not determined solely by your experiences.

I don't know. Presumably not after the foetus starts moving though. What's the materialist answer?

Consciousness is a function of processes in the brain. It "flickers into being" slowly as the foetus develops, and also after the baby is born.

~~ Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

You can make a copy of me, give me $10K, and destroy the copy.

However, the other way around is a bit dicey. Now you're asking me to forget ethics and my own personal safety, because you're going to kill me. And if you ask me to throw personal safety out the window, then hell, I'd let you kill me without making the copy, wouldn't I?

And I could have sworn you were a materialist!

BillyJoe.
(Yes, still following the thread )

 

[BillyJoe]

Sorry Paul, I think I may have read your reply too quickly.

BillyJoe
(Seems you just don't trust Ian with your life)

 

[Loki]

Ian,

It seems that so far people are comprehensively failing to see the paradox generated.

Given the fact that everyone (Titus included) *except you* seems to be saying the same thing, I think it's a reasonably safe bet that the "paradox" is not only hard to find, but probably non existent.

Will spell out the paradox soon.

Don't take too long Ian - this isn't all that interesting at the moment.

(Replying to Paul) : Well you're holding the position that the original is really you.
...
All that is happening is that people are thinking that the original is really them and the duplicate isn't

Gee, I *really* hope this isn't your "paradox" - can you really fail to understand what people have said to you this badly? Even Win was arguing against the nonsense you are offering up.

Let me see if I understand you so far...

We place person 'A' in room 'A'. We duplicate (instantaneously, painlessly, and undetectibly) the entire room and the person in every possible physical detail (except location, of course) to create person 'A1' in room 'A1'. For the next 24 hours, every single physical interaction that ocurs to/with/on person 'A' also occurs with person 'A1'. At the end of the 24 hour period, we kill either person 'A', or person 'A1'. You seem to be implying that materialists believe that it makes a difference whether we kill 'A' or 'A1'?

Well, I think it matters to 'A' or to 'A1', but not to the universe :

At the start of the experiment the universe contains one 'instance' of a human we call 'A'.

For 24 hours the the universe contains two 'instances' of a human we call 'A'. We can differentiate between them by location only. We can refer to them as 'A' (the original) and 'A1' (the duplicate) if we like, but they are in fact identical in every way. We *can* refer to them as 'A' and 'A1' (that is, we can tell them apart) because they differ in location.

At the end of the 24 hours, we kill one, and the universe now contains only one instance of a human called 'A'.

From the perspective of the surviving 'A', there is no loss of continuity - they are, and have always been, 'A'. From the perspective of the universe there has always been *at least* one 'A' (for a short period there were two). From the perspective of the the 'A' that died, they...died!

Please, you'd better reveal this paradox...I'm just not seeing it.