Everyone should go check out the TED speech video "Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight". The lady has a stroke that turns off the part of the brain that controls consciousness, and explains what it feels like. Consciousness is a product of the brain.
This was a very pointless conversation from both perspectives. I made the assumption based on the Title that a discussion on consciousness as it relates to god or not would be taking place. Instead a bunch of false claims about free will are discussed by a caller jumping around to multiple topics, and a host that as totally clueless to the concept of free will. Why was this video even posted?
Even if consciousness and soul are synonymous, that tells us nothing about the nature of the soul.
BTW, scientists have already examined consciousness by monitoring brain activity and chemical reactions inside living humans. NONE discovered that the human was kept alive by an immortal, invisible, immaterial state of being.
I would be weary of taking that stance, other animals display a level of awareness but it's hard to be certain they experience what we call consciousness. They probably do but we have no way of knowing exactly when or what forms demand a consciousness. The caller conflates that with his religious concept of soul. It seems unknowable to me how why or by what force materials/elaborate chemical reactions become self aware or why we particularly need to be the ones conscious.
The brain may be collection of atom, the memory and experiences are not. Computer may be just collection of wires, sillicons and plastics. Its database and capabilities are not.
The soul is a myth - or maybe I just don't understand the concept.
- If the soul is immaterial how does it affect my brain in the real world?
- Feelings & emotions are based on hormones and bioelectric signals, so how does the immaterial soul manage to feel the same emotions without hormones and bioelectric signals?
It makes no sense to me. And I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not me but the Christians who does not actually understand what a soul is.
It would be just Incest, because masturbation, is one person right? IF I go down, or play with my partner, she is not masturbating, nor am I masturbating her its a funny question.. Yet, its also stupid, because identical twins are clones or genetically and they would be committing incest.. So you cloning yourself is different from nature doing it how?
Positive atheism is an oxymoron, atheism is reductive and intentionally ignorant. The soul is the non-material essence of a person, the sum of the subjective experience, memories and emotions. Atheism is irrational and pessimistic, God is merely the expression and product of human weaknesses.
The problem of existence is too large for our small minds, but to deny the existence of a creation force that is responsible for differentiating life from inanimate matter like in atheism is ignorance.
@HomuncuIus Wrong, ignorance is assuming that because we cannot explain something, it is a better idea to create a reason, than to admit that we do not have the answer and continue searching.
To say that there is a creating force, is to open paths of questions which serve to lead us away from the more logical paths of reason. If i cannot see into a dark cave, I do not assume there is a particular object down there, I would look for a way to light the cave, and discover the truth.
Neither. It's not masturbation (Unless you're the caller, who believes copies are the same thing), and incest is having sex with people you're related to, not who you are an exact copy of. It's kind of like how 1 isn't a prime number....
When you posit that guys like Buddha or Jesus were average men who simply had an experience of a higher consciousness or what's called today a "cosmic consciousness," a colossal experience of something transcendental and transpersonal, then you have an origin for how the very notion of God came into thought. In Christianity, Jesus was pedestalized, and so this religion involved a worship to God or Jesus instead of a direct contact to the divine which eastern religion offers through meditation.
Great debate. Personally, I disagree with matt a little. If you could make an atomically (not just anatomically) perfect copy of me - it would in fact be me. This idea of 'copy' relates only to the fact that perfect copies are impossible for us to create and therefore were stuck with the concept of original and copy.
This point is contingent upon 2 atoms of the same element always being identical - which I believe is the case, but could turn out to be false.
@TawntheAtheist Disagree. It's a "copy" because your mom didn't bear it, it never grew up, it has no legal right to your effects because it never bought them or was given them, and until and unless somebody performed some masked-wrestling-tag-team chicanery on the person who made the clone, that person could tell you immediately who was the original and who was the copy.
The copy would think it was you. Under the right conditions it could pass any test for being you. But it wouldn't be you.
@DuhIdiot1 History is merely a set of events leading to a conditon. If the end condition is identical, the history of a person or thing is now only in our perceptions. A simple lie can change perception. As you say, if the creator of the copy loses track of which is which - what exactly is there to identify one from the other? If there is no actual difference - then how can you say it is not the same?
Your final comment is just an assertion, I dont see the justification for it..
@TawntheAtheist I gave the justification. The copy has a buttload of properties you don't and vice versa. A thing which has properties you don't or lacks ones you have is not you.
@DuhIdiot1 No, the only properties you described were historical ones and I described how this was nothing more than perception.
I put it to you, that if we mix the two people up the supposed 'copy' will pass any test under any conditions.
Consider: every cell in your body will have been replaced in a 7 year period. Are you still you? What are 'you'? If I have a broom, I replace the brush (head) then years later I replace the handle - is it the same broom?
@TawntheAtheist You described how, if we gaze sufficiently hard into our navels, the decades of history you have that the copy doesn't magically disappear. Now you're describing how, if we hit the off switch on our brains, the fact that a thing can change with time can convince us that there's no such thing as a "thing".
Sophomore year of college being 17 years in the past for me, I'm yawning and waiting for the impressive part.
@TawntheAtheist Always love pondering and discussing. It beats the heck out of work.
But as I get older and grumpier, I have less patience with some views and topics in philosophy (which I generally love). The "problem" of induction, for instance, or the "illusion of the self".
I agree the copy could pass most any test. Heck, I said that before you did. But whether we can tell who's who is an entirely separate question from whether there are two different whos.
@TawntheAtheist Ah, here's one for you: if the first thing the copy did upon stepping down off the transporter pad (cuz we know that's how this guy's getting zapped into existence) was to kill you in front of witnesses, should he go to jail? After all, if he's you and he's alive then you weren't killed and there was no crime.
@DuhIdiot1 Good point. I'd say there were two of me - so there is a crime.
However, its good because of another reason. I argued that the 'history' of the original and copy was irrelevant - because they have the same end point. However, comitting an action such as a crime may not physically alter you - but we assign a legal value to it.
A more taxing question is, if my copy kills a person and then dissapears - should I go to jail for the crime? So, although bound by perception, it is relevant
@TawntheAtheist I thought I had you dead to rights with a test the copy couldn't pass, btw.
My thought was that right around the time the copy was created, there would have to be some memory in his head that wouldn't be in yours. So you just perfect either mystical or technological telepathy and scan both minds to find the anomalous memory.
But if I design the procedure and the facility in which it happens fiendishly enough, I think I can frustrate that method of detection.
@TawntheAtheist Oh, and a point of sheer annoying pedantry: two atoms of the same *isotope* will be identical. Two atoms of the same element can differ in neutron count.
Lol, yeah.. I was aware of that. :) One could be more pedantic and say that the electron may be in a different position.. if that even means anything.. quantum physics still baffles me.
Any man that tries to tell me that Schrodinger's kitty *really is* in some indeterminate state neither live nor dead until somebody opens the box better be prepared to throw down.
@DuhIdiot1 Hehe.. yeah but its just a way of demonstrating or explainign what they think is happening at the quantum level.. its some thing to do with the polarity of light. I need to re-read my books on quantum physics..
but I agree with you.. the Copenhagen interpretation is just nonsense. cant buy it. If a tree falls down in a forest and nobody sees it, it DOES make a sound. The other interpretations seem more true.
I try to have respect and understanding for everyone and their minds. But I just do not get how he could think any of this reasoning could be qualified as reasoning. Just... wtf? I'm not the most Vulcan-style logic person in the world either, but really?
+credit for starting with defining what he wanted to proof, though.
If a pencil were conscious and if that pencil was replaced by another pencil it would know that it has been replaced. Likewise, if that same pencil were to "die" it would be dead while the other pencil kept living.
the problem with the callers thought experiment was that it had a false premiss. You have to be very careful when making thought experiments, cause you can assume some aspects of reality, shape it like you want and then you move on to make a point or impulse, but everyone ignores the false premiss....cause its a thought experiment, everything is allowed
Seems like thees guys aren't answering the question, they are beating around the bush... Computers dont make desiosions they just do what the algorithm tells them. And they can't be creative.
I don't think anyone can answer the question what is consciousness... to me that seems the toughest question there is.
Just wanted to throw in my two cents. What's the difference between a clone and a twin? Aren't they essentially the same thing? In twins, you have one cell in the womb that splits into two which leads to 2 genetically identical people, whereas cloning simply bypasses the cell-splitting creation aspect of it, right? As a result, I postulate that it would have to be incest b/c a clone would be synonymous or @ least very similar to a twin sibling.
Twins are not always clones. Twins are sibling born at the same time. A clone is a biologically identical individual.
However, not all twins are clones. There are instances where you get biologically different children at once. It's not a genetic defect, but something happening during contraception.
@nmryda Only identical twins share identical DNA. Identical twins are the result of one embryo splitting into two embryos part way through development. Regular twins (I forget the term) are the result of two separate eggs being fertilized by two separate sperm, and are there for no more identical than regular brothers and sisters.
As far as we know, chance is not a factor in our universe. This means everything is governed by laws, which are absolute. Everything happens exactly how it happens and it can't happen any other way. So there is in fact, only one possible future.
What we call random is what we cannot predict at all. Next week's lottery numbers were set all the at the beginning of the universe, we just have no capability, and perhaps never will, to predict them.
Double post: surprisingly, the question of whether sex with your clone is incest or masturbation, and the answer (incest), is very useful to explaining the relationship between a clone and the "original." The perception is often, sadly, that a clone is a copy of yourself, which it actually isn't; it's a copy of your *genetic material*, and is in actuality your child by asexual reproduction.
I'm going to have to go with "incest." Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction (and asexual reproduction happens often in nature), meaning a clone is, effectively, your child.
I just know there's a planet of robots somewhere where a theist robot is calling into an atheist robot show, and insisting he isn't just a collection of wires, and circuits.
@xRocketNumber9x If it is self-aware that he is more than just mere cable and wires and can think beyond what he is programmed to think, then by all mean, the robot has soul and should be treated as a living being.
I think you miss the point that the caller is trying to tell you. He wants you to visualize you, the soul, as something more than just the brain that contains your experience, but the content of that brain (consciousness), the essence of your life. This is however just a visual tool for you to grasp what it really is and appreciate its value. Think of it as art and not a science term. Most people can understand art easier than complex scientific explanation.
The hard problem of consciousness deals with the seemingly uncrossable bridge between what happens in your brain when it processes specific information from the eye, and the specific experience of the color "red".
And that's all it does, it doesn't claim any kind of "dualism" or metaphysical component.
your clone isn't you. your mind is the product of your brain. the clone's mind is the product of their brain. those 2 brains are identical, but they are TWO brains, processing different information.
if you just clone yourself and have sex with the clone, that is incest. however, if you link up your minds (probably a wireless connection) so that one mind controls both bodies, then it's masturbation.
incest, but hot damn i think most people are in love with themselves anyway so it may solve a lot of problems :) i recommend getting yourself in shape before cloning, tho (not pointed at anyone in particular!!! just a general comment).
so then... what happens if you get brain damage and you lose your sense of self and dont know who you are anymore? are you now without a soul? like they said we may not be able to fully explain consciousness, but based on what the caller was talking about, it probably is just something communicated via the neurons in ur brain, giving memory, personality,etc. and shaped by experiences in life.And at any rate, if we understand that little about it it certainly shouldnt be used as proof of anything
Well, even though I believe you have a soul, the caller hasn't done enough research. He probably just watched a video about it then called in with only a 10 minute research span...
Good argument!!!! Why would you post on here calling out the atheists present on the video and have no backing of your claim? Enlighten us with why they are "idiots" in your masterful opinion.
I think that the hosts missed the point a little bit with the original question. They had the precious opportunity of addressing a directly verifiable and interesting claim from a believer: that we can differentiate between two exact copies of a person at the moment that the copy occurs, because one of them will not have a "soul". I think that the conversation could have been a lot shorter if they had directly addressed that claim.
i mean the big bang is a good theory and is probably true in my opinion but how did it come about? if god did it where did he come from? it's an unanswerable question. there is no explanation that can satisfy the human mind. everything else in Nature makes sense to me ( determinism, the laws of physics) but where did it come from and when matter evolves over billions of years why does a conscious, feeling, seeing mind come into existence? why doesn't it all just happen. it's fucking amazing!!
I just find it amazing and unexplainable that we have a consciousness( i don't like to say "have a consciousness" because that may be defined in many ways but i should say that we "have this experience, we feel, we see, we don't just react to stimuli( well we do but we are also here to experience it)) This is one of the most peculiar things in Nature. there are two things that make me wonder about god. 1) the fact that we have this experience. 2) the fact that anything exists at all...
... I believe that the laws of physics determine what events will take place. I believe that any decisions we make or any thoughts we have are determined by the laws of physics like the caller said and i agree with how he said we are just machines moving and changing as time passes in such a way that is determined by physics. So why do we have this consciousness and why do we actually see this picture in front of our face? i don't say their is or isn't a god. i don't know....
Hypothetically let's say the atoms in your body were disassembled and therefore you were dead, and then they were all put back in there original place, every atom exactly where it was before dis assembly, every single detail identical to the original you, every electron every quark, i mean EVERYTHING. Would your consciousness spontaneously come back and you would be able to experience the world again? Or would it be another consciousness and you would stay dead...
HAHAHA! Jen wins the show for the comment at the end! Her mind started drifting after realizing that the caller started going nowhere with his soul argument ... then *bing*
soul can be compared to only electrical and chemical responses to stimuli in the brain, and personalty can be compared to the way we respond to that stimuli based on memory. just the most reasonable speculation :3
@atjmfchick93 If he is not of this world than he doesn't have any influence on it and shouldn't even be considered. Believers claim he does influence things and want to base laws and moral principles on their religion...therefore it should be proveable before we accept it...
A dog looks in the mirror and does not recognize himself (could say he is not conscious of himself), a chimpanzee looks in the mirror and recognizes himself (could say he is conscious of himself). We could say a chimpanzee has consciousness and a dog has not. Does that mean dogs have no souls but chimps do?
@foolifee This question was meant for Theists that think a soul is a spirit and not part of our physical being; they think it lives on when we die. I am an Atheist I believe a soul is a product our mind which itself is the product of the higher order part of our brain, the part of our brain that makes us conscious of ourselves.
I would agree that the soul is labelled to be consciousness and that they thought to be the same thing, only believers claim that they were inserted into our bodies by God, as if our bodies are mere hollow shells or containers for something to inhabit. If a man loses his memories, never regaining them, would he have a different soul? Consciousness is a byproduct of our brain, but believers say that harming the physical body doesn't damage the soul. So if it isn't consciousness, then what?
I think their skepticism towards souls is because they assume the soul is the supernatural thing that Christians describe. I would say the soul IS consciousness, which is what I think the caller is trying to say.
Although I would submit that since I agree with much of what the caller is saying and I'm an atheist that the soul he's talking about has NOTHING to do with the existence of God.
It's neither! Masturbation is one person preforming an act to reach orgasm on themselves. It's not incest because it's a clone, not a naturally born twin. It's just sex with another person who happens to have atoms arranged in exactly the same way that yours are.
I'm more sympathetic to this guy's problem than that of most theists. We have the illusion of "residing" in our bodies rather than being the result of the process that takes place in our brain. I think a machine that can do everything we can do would assert that it has consciousness. I like what Dan Dennett has to say about this.
I caught that point too, I am pretty certain what he was saying was that the atoms that now make him up were always 'his'. Meaning that there was no complete switch. So I interpreted it as, atoms make us up, then we adapt to those atoms, so that redefines us(I would have a whole different set of atoms in me if I had eaten the cake that my friend had).
The issue with the clone is that he was made all at once.
The response to the free will argument is the same thing - it is essentially a straw man response. His counterexamples (intentionally?) confuse freedom to act with frreedom to choose. The deer has complete free will in all of those situations; it has the freedom to choose what courses of action it will pursue. What is restricted is not its ability to choose, but its ability to reach its goals or complete its actions. Choice remains.
"No one has even defined the term soul" - that's the point.
Normally I love the Atheist Experience, but this was terrible. They are spending their whole time criticizing trivial points and steps, and avoiding the actual difficult issue - not that we do not know how to explain consciousness, but that it being supernatural is as plausible an explanation as it being an "emergent process" (which, what the **** does that mean? That's not even an attempt at an explanation) or some other natural thing.
false, morals are rules, rules are generated from mind, mind is generated from brain, brain is atoms. Or you said "themselfs" meaning that each atom, taken separately, can't produce morality?
@preztres: You are always you, but only the you that exists right now, no one else. Ten years ago my consciousness was Very different from what it is today, and I suspect that the difference may be attributed to changes to the neurological pathways in my brain (and the trials and tribulations of late puberty).
My younger sister still recognizes me because we see each other often, and my DNA has only made Gradual changes to my biological structure over the period of time that she has known me. My older brother, whom I had not seen in 20 years, said, "I hardly recognize you." when we met a couple weeks ago. This was because of the biological changes that happened to my body over the last twenty years, not because I had a new set of atoms...
About the soul: As you(preztres) have just described it, the soul vs. body debate is essentially an identity issue. This is only part of the issue, but a very important part, and I would say that as an alternative identity to both "the body" and "the soul", one might say, as I have implied earlier, that an identity lies in the perception of the moment.
I think that this partially demonstrates how malleable the foundations for an identity can be, and how much of it depends on circumstantial things; like personal experience.
That is not my point of view. My body is a mere tool, my body, including my brain is me. My personality and consciousness is a function of my body. if I had myself cloned, the clone would not be me. It would be another person who would be identical to me, just as a natural twin brother would. If I had a twin, there would not be two me's. There would be me, and my twin brother, two different, though identical, persons. The same would apply if I had a clone.
We're talking about cloning, not brain transplantation. These are two different things. Once again, my clone would be another person, not me, he would have his brain, not mine. I wonder if you understand what a clone is.
For the exact same reason that your twin, also an exact copy of you is not you. Maybe this will help. There is one big difference between a clone and a twin. You and your twin are the same age. You and your clone are not. If I had myself cloned and the clone was born today, I would be 67 years older than my clone. That clone would grew up with his own experiences and memories, not mine. Just as my twin brother of the same age as me would have his own experiences and memories, not mine.
a twin is not a exact copy becaus he has is own experiences and memories ,lets say you clone your self and you die but the clone dont know he is cloned and that you have die he lives your life and nobody knows
You just answered your own question. A twin is not an exact copy any more, or less, than a clone is. Each has his own experiences & memories just as I said. The only difference between a clone and a twin is the age of the two individuals. Whether i die or not the clone is living his own life, not mine, and will continue to live his life, not mine, after I die, unless he dies first. Do you have any idea what a clone is?
Do you have any idea what a clone is? that why we have this.. debate.. we have a diffrend ideei what clone precieces is .i say the clone is you der is no diffrends that he have diffrend memeries after that is the same as you expierences new things
Now we get to the root of the problem. You don't know what a clone is. My clone would not be me any more than my twin. A human and its clone are two separate persons who happen to have identical genetic material, DNA. That is all. They have their own lives, experiences, and memories. Another problem we have is that English is obviously not your primary language. Google "cloning" in your own language. Maybe then you can understand it. Good Bye!
I don't think the caller was talking about a clone in the biological sense but more in a hypothetical star trek transporter kinda way. If your body was completely destructed and rebuilt would you still be the same entity? In the end it comes down to weather or not conciousness is a purely physical thing or something else
It would be incest in a technical sense. However, I don't know whether it would be incest in the legal sense, since I don't know if any laws have been passed anywhere yet defining the relationship between a person and his/her clone. For that matter I don't even know if any laws define sex between natural siblings of the same gender as incest. Legally it might be just, as Woody Allen might put, sex with someone you love.
do you christians realize you're worshiping an atheist? the god that you nutjobs believe to exist is by your own description an atheist. he doesn't believe in any higher power. you guys should take his hint
Everyone should go check out the TED speech video "Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight". The lady has a stroke that turns off the part of the brain that controls consciousness, and explains what it feels like. Consciousness is a product of the brain.
I believe
herpderpmonkey 6 days ago
I've been trying this free will debate somewhere else with no action, maybe here.
Ok, I propose that determinism is the only logical conclusion, and free will is a blank check. Free will is magic.
Incesturbation ftw.
40gabe 2 weeks ago
peace and love to everybody!
me25422 2 weeks ago
making pittsburgh look bad...
me25422 2 weeks ago
This was a very pointless conversation from both perspectives. I made the assumption based on the Title that a discussion on consciousness as it relates to god or not would be taking place. Instead a bunch of false claims about free will are discussed by a caller jumping around to multiple topics, and a host that as totally clueless to the concept of free will. Why was this video even posted?
lion575 3 weeks ago
I am conscious, therefore I have a soul.
Okay, then do sleeping people lose their souls?
Do people in comas lose their souls?
Even if consciousness and soul are synonymous, that tells us nothing about the nature of the soul.
BTW, scientists have already examined consciousness by monitoring brain activity and chemical reactions inside living humans. NONE discovered that the human was kept alive by an immortal, invisible, immaterial state of being.
MunkyDrag0n 3 months ago
And by the way, conciousness is result of evolution. The very thing that enable human to survive for such a long time.
Human are the most frail of animals yet we dominate the earth thanks to our brain development which in turn evolved conciousness.
rimidalvetarak 4 months ago 2
@rimidalvetarak
I would be weary of taking that stance, other animals display a level of awareness but it's hard to be certain they experience what we call consciousness. They probably do but we have no way of knowing exactly when or what forms demand a consciousness. The caller conflates that with his religious concept of soul. It seems unknowable to me how why or by what force materials/elaborate chemical reactions become self aware or why we particularly need to be the ones conscious.
Chinomareno 2 months ago
The brain may be collection of atom, the memory and experiences are not. Computer may be just collection of wires, sillicons and plastics. Its database and capabilities are not.
rimidalvetarak 4 months ago
The soul is a myth - or maybe I just don't understand the concept.
- If the soul is immaterial how does it affect my brain in the real world?
- Feelings & emotions are based on hormones and bioelectric signals, so how does the immaterial soul manage to feel the same emotions without hormones and bioelectric signals?
It makes no sense to me. And I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not me but the Christians who does not actually understand what a soul is.
I think it's mostly just memes...
itsjustameme 4 months ago
Jen, wonderful question. So if I am having sex with my clone would I know if I would still love myself in the morning?
nedladdy 4 months ago
It would be just Incest, because masturbation, is one person right? IF I go down, or play with my partner, she is not masturbating, nor am I masturbating her its a funny question.. Yet, its also stupid, because identical twins are clones or genetically and they would be committing incest.. So you cloning yourself is different from nature doing it how?
ASexyChef 4 months ago
the baby would be a mini me, thus completing me.
signofsatan 4 months ago
Agnosticism is the only rational stance.
HomuncuIus 5 months ago
Positive atheism is an oxymoron, atheism is reductive and intentionally ignorant. The soul is the non-material essence of a person, the sum of the subjective experience, memories and emotions. Atheism is irrational and pessimistic, God is merely the expression and product of human weaknesses.
The problem of existence is too large for our small minds, but to deny the existence of a creation force that is responsible for differentiating life from inanimate matter like in atheism is ignorance.
HomuncuIus 5 months ago
@HomuncuIus Wrong, ignorance is assuming that because we cannot explain something, it is a better idea to create a reason, than to admit that we do not have the answer and continue searching.
To say that there is a creating force, is to open paths of questions which serve to lead us away from the more logical paths of reason. If i cannot see into a dark cave, I do not assume there is a particular object down there, I would look for a way to light the cave, and discover the truth.
CallMeMrX 5 months ago 9
Neither. It's not masturbation (Unless you're the caller, who believes copies are the same thing), and incest is having sex with people you're related to, not who you are an exact copy of. It's kind of like how 1 isn't a prime number....
Sines314 5 months ago
Arnie: "You should clone yourself while you're still alive"
Bad Guy: "And why is that, so I can understand your unique perspective?"
Arnie: "No so you can FUCK yourself"
The Sixth Day
mattnashisgay 6 months ago
9:08-10:19 Jen is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!
FallofDarkness55 6 months ago
What is a soul. 'It's hard to explain, I just know that because I'm conscious I have a soul but it's hard to explain'.
That's a good argument mate
Squellikin 7 months ago
When you posit that guys like Buddha or Jesus were average men who simply had an experience of a higher consciousness or what's called today a "cosmic consciousness," a colossal experience of something transcendental and transpersonal, then you have an origin for how the very notion of God came into thought. In Christianity, Jesus was pedestalized, and so this religion involved a worship to God or Jesus instead of a direct contact to the divine which eastern religion offers through meditation.
Hanahleia 7 months ago
Great debate. Personally, I disagree with matt a little. If you could make an atomically (not just anatomically) perfect copy of me - it would in fact be me. This idea of 'copy' relates only to the fact that perfect copies are impossible for us to create and therefore were stuck with the concept of original and copy.
This point is contingent upon 2 atoms of the same element always being identical - which I believe is the case, but could turn out to be false.
TawntheAtheist 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist Disagree. It's a "copy" because your mom didn't bear it, it never grew up, it has no legal right to your effects because it never bought them or was given them, and until and unless somebody performed some masked-wrestling-tag-team chicanery on the person who made the clone, that person could tell you immediately who was the original and who was the copy.
The copy would think it was you. Under the right conditions it could pass any test for being you. But it wouldn't be you.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 History is merely a set of events leading to a conditon. If the end condition is identical, the history of a person or thing is now only in our perceptions. A simple lie can change perception. As you say, if the creator of the copy loses track of which is which - what exactly is there to identify one from the other? If there is no actual difference - then how can you say it is not the same?
Your final comment is just an assertion, I dont see the justification for it..
TawntheAtheist 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist I gave the justification. The copy has a buttload of properties you don't and vice versa. A thing which has properties you don't or lacks ones you have is not you.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 No, the only properties you described were historical ones and I described how this was nothing more than perception.
I put it to you, that if we mix the two people up the supposed 'copy' will pass any test under any conditions.
Consider: every cell in your body will have been replaced in a 7 year period. Are you still you? What are 'you'? If I have a broom, I replace the brush (head) then years later I replace the handle - is it the same broom?
TawntheAtheist 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist You described how, if we gaze sufficiently hard into our navels, the decades of history you have that the copy doesn't magically disappear. Now you're describing how, if we hit the off switch on our brains, the fact that a thing can change with time can convince us that there's no such thing as a "thing".
Sophomore year of college being 17 years in the past for me, I'm yawning and waiting for the impressive part.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 Hang on.
Do you think were having a debate or a discussion?
I dont care to impress you of anything. I thought you might be interested in pondering and discussing these concepts.
TawntheAtheist 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist Always love pondering and discussing. It beats the heck out of work.
But as I get older and grumpier, I have less patience with some views and topics in philosophy (which I generally love). The "problem" of induction, for instance, or the "illusion of the self".
I agree the copy could pass most any test. Heck, I said that before you did. But whether we can tell who's who is an entirely separate question from whether there are two different whos.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist Ah, here's one for you: if the first thing the copy did upon stepping down off the transporter pad (cuz we know that's how this guy's getting zapped into existence) was to kill you in front of witnesses, should he go to jail? After all, if he's you and he's alive then you weren't killed and there was no crime.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 Good point. I'd say there were two of me - so there is a crime.
However, its good because of another reason. I argued that the 'history' of the original and copy was irrelevant - because they have the same end point. However, comitting an action such as a crime may not physically alter you - but we assign a legal value to it.
A more taxing question is, if my copy kills a person and then dissapears - should I go to jail for the crime? So, although bound by perception, it is relevant
TawntheAtheist 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist The copy could easily frame you so that you were justly yet wrongly imprisoned.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist I thought I had you dead to rights with a test the copy couldn't pass, btw.
My thought was that right around the time the copy was created, there would have to be some memory in his head that wouldn't be in yours. So you just perfect either mystical or technological telepathy and scan both minds to find the anomalous memory.
But if I design the procedure and the facility in which it happens fiendishly enough, I think I can frustrate that method of detection.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist Oh, and a point of sheer annoying pedantry: two atoms of the same *isotope* will be identical. Two atoms of the same element can differ in neutron count.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@DuhIdiot1
Lol, yeah.. I was aware of that. :) One could be more pedantic and say that the electron may be in a different position.. if that even means anything.. quantum physics still baffles me.
TawntheAtheist 7 months ago
@TawntheAtheist Baffles? It pisses me off!
Any man that tries to tell me that Schrodinger's kitty *really is* in some indeterminate state neither live nor dead until somebody opens the box better be prepared to throw down.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 Hehe.. yeah but its just a way of demonstrating or explainign what they think is happening at the quantum level.. its some thing to do with the polarity of light. I need to re-read my books on quantum physics..
but I agree with you.. the Copenhagen interpretation is just nonsense. cant buy it. If a tree falls down in a forest and nobody sees it, it DOES make a sound. The other interpretations seem more true.
TawntheAtheist 7 months ago
I try to have respect and understanding for everyone and their minds. But I just do not get how he could think any of this reasoning could be qualified as reasoning. Just... wtf? I'm not the most Vulcan-style logic person in the world either, but really?
+credit for starting with defining what he wanted to proof, though.
ChajaYudelevitz 7 months ago
If a pencil were conscious and if that pencil was replaced by another pencil it would know that it has been replaced. Likewise, if that same pencil were to "die" it would be dead while the other pencil kept living.
FallofDarkness55 7 months ago
I LOVE JEN! I LOVE HER SENSE OF HUMOR AND SHE'S ATTRACTIVE.
FallofDarkness55 7 months ago
I think it's beautiful that I'm an incredibly complex collection of atoms, this guy has the wrong idea.
infiniteV115 7 months ago
Like, he was one of the most, like, of the, like most painful theist of, like, TAE, like EVER! Yuck, I could barely stand to listen to that guy.
christallh24 8 months ago
the problem with the callers thought experiment was that it had a false premiss. You have to be very careful when making thought experiments, cause you can assume some aspects of reality, shape it like you want and then you move on to make a point or impulse, but everyone ignores the false premiss....cause its a thought experiment, everything is allowed
Serpico261 8 months ago
In my view, identical twins are two iterations of the same person. Conjoined twins are a person with two brains (and arms, legs, or whatever).
It doesn't mean each twin doesn't deserve their own rights, though. Each brain deserves full rights in a free society.
dorsk188 8 months ago
Seems like thees guys aren't answering the question, they are beating around the bush... Computers dont make desiosions they just do what the algorithm tells them. And they can't be creative.
I don't think anyone can answer the question what is consciousness... to me that seems the toughest question there is.
GreatThunder1 8 months ago
@GreatThunder1
What makes you think people don't follow an algorithm as well?
People act in certain ways because of both biological and external factors, which is why we have statistics.
In that view, computers and humans are no different in "making decisions" as we both follow an algorithm of a sort.
As to what consciousness is, it depends what you mean by that. There are dictionary definitions. XD
DestAeval 8 months ago
Me and my cloooone!
CyberBushBush 8 months ago
lol @ 09:09
An0maly777 9 months ago
Just wanted to throw in my two cents. What's the difference between a clone and a twin? Aren't they essentially the same thing? In twins, you have one cell in the womb that splits into two which leads to 2 genetically identical people, whereas cloning simply bypasses the cell-splitting creation aspect of it, right? As a result, I postulate that it would have to be incest b/c a clone would be synonymous or @ least very similar to a twin sibling.
nmryda 9 months ago
@nmryda
Twins are not always clones. Twins are sibling born at the same time. A clone is a biologically identical individual.
However, not all twins are clones. There are instances where you get biologically different children at once. It's not a genetic defect, but something happening during contraception.
DestAeval 9 months ago
@DestAeval Twins are biologically identical. They might not always be physically identical, but they share DNA.
nmryda 8 months ago
@nmryda Only identical twins share identical DNA. Identical twins are the result of one embryo splitting into two embryos part way through development. Regular twins (I forget the term) are the result of two separate eggs being fertilized by two separate sperm, and are there for no more identical than regular brothers and sisters.
Slanguaj 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slanguaj "Regular twins (I forget the term)"
"Fraternal".
Although since etymologically that means "brotherly", the anti-patriarchy brigade may have forced them to change the term to "sororal" or something.
DuhIdiot1 7 months ago
you guys are pompous... a "soul" is a concept. you must be retarded if you can't observe the difference in a living body and a corpus.
Jen doesn't get laid, so the answer is neither. her dry ears of a twat is similar to her wit. dorks
romney27 9 months ago
9:10
Sounds like a question for Philosoraptor =D
maccollo 9 months ago
Pencils have feelings too.
(What if your clone turns you down?)
HarrysSecret 9 months ago
I believe it was Carl Segan who said "the beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, it's the way those atoms are put together."
This kid needs a science class
MrC0MPUT3R 9 months ago
Deepak Chopra Jr. =) he learned from the master, NO I mean Quacker
yxrcbszg 9 months ago
As far as we know, chance is not a factor in our universe. This means everything is governed by laws, which are absolute. Everything happens exactly how it happens and it can't happen any other way. So there is in fact, only one possible future.
What we call random is what we cannot predict at all. Next week's lottery numbers were set all the at the beginning of the universe, we just have no capability, and perhaps never will, to predict them.
We do not have free will. Just the illusion.
Jussimania 9 months ago
Double post: surprisingly, the question of whether sex with your clone is incest or masturbation, and the answer (incest), is very useful to explaining the relationship between a clone and the "original." The perception is often, sadly, that a clone is a copy of yourself, which it actually isn't; it's a copy of your *genetic material*, and is in actuality your child by asexual reproduction.
belladonna5012 10 months ago
I'm going to have to go with "incest." Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction (and asexual reproduction happens often in nature), meaning a clone is, effectively, your child.
belladonna5012 10 months ago
I just know there's a planet of robots somewhere where a theist robot is calling into an atheist robot show, and insisting he isn't just a collection of wires, and circuits.
xRocketNumber9x 10 months ago
@xRocketNumber9x If it is self-aware that he is more than just mere cable and wires and can think beyond what he is programmed to think, then by all mean, the robot has soul and should be treated as a living being.
xdragon2k 9 months ago
Incest.
NormanAngle 10 months ago
I think you miss the point that the caller is trying to tell you. He wants you to visualize you, the soul, as something more than just the brain that contains your experience, but the content of that brain (consciousness), the essence of your life. This is however just a visual tool for you to grasp what it really is and appreciate its value. Think of it as art and not a science term. Most people can understand art easier than complex scientific explanation.
xdragon2k 10 months ago
@xdragon2k
Consciousness=/=soul.
The hard problem of consciousness deals with the seemingly uncrossable bridge between what happens in your brain when it processes specific information from the eye, and the specific experience of the color "red".
And that's all it does, it doesn't claim any kind of "dualism" or metaphysical component.
twooffour 9 months ago
@xdragon2k
Yea, just watched it to the end.
Nothing about this guy is "art". He just doesn't have a grasp of what he's talking about.
Supernatural soul as an explanation for consciousness = assumption =/= artsy visualization.
The zombie is the best "visualization" that I know, and he almost didn't bring it up. It was a trainwreck.
twooffour 9 months ago
your clone isn't you. your mind is the product of your brain. the clone's mind is the product of their brain. those 2 brains are identical, but they are TWO brains, processing different information.
JohnF30Music 10 months ago 3
if you just clone yourself and have sex with the clone, that is incest. however, if you link up your minds (probably a wireless connection) so that one mind controls both bodies, then it's masturbation.
7lllll 11 months ago
incest, but hot damn i think most people are in love with themselves anyway so it may solve a lot of problems :) i recommend getting yourself in shape before cloning, tho (not pointed at anyone in particular!!! just a general comment).
kfetter16 1 year ago
Incesturbation
a68rebel 1 year ago 29
@a68rebel
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Katalyzt 11 months ago
@a68rebel whatever it is i win lol
shedininja001 2 weeks ago
Jen Peeples knows peoples.
pythor2 1 year ago
so then... what happens if you get brain damage and you lose your sense of self and dont know who you are anymore? are you now without a soul? like they said we may not be able to fully explain consciousness, but based on what the caller was talking about, it probably is just something communicated via the neurons in ur brain, giving memory, personality,etc. and shaped by experiences in life.And at any rate, if we understand that little about it it certainly shouldnt be used as proof of anything
marcopolott 1 year ago
lol.... Jen
ArturShapiro 1 year ago
best question ever from jen
jmm1233 1 year ago
Well, even though I believe you have a soul, the caller hasn't done enough research. He probably just watched a video about it then called in with only a 10 minute research span...
Germanboy567 1 year ago
hah! Jen that was superb!
morgandude2 1 year ago
8:55 the caller's brain exploded.
alaskan371 1 year ago
Listening to that kid on the phone makes Me want to swallow razor blades
coopersnoop 1 year ago
The caller is obsessed with Souls,
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
the caller is 100% correct. the atheists are absolute idiots
pamela201094 1 year ago
@pamela201094
Good argument!!!! Why would you post on here calling out the atheists present on the video and have no backing of your claim? Enlighten us with why they are "idiots" in your masterful opinion.
Netherdramus 1 year ago
@pamela201094 How is the caller correct, per say? Or I guess I should ask why the atheists' rebuttles are wrong...??
bttrflykiss7701 1 year ago
I think that the hosts missed the point a little bit with the original question. They had the precious opportunity of addressing a directly verifiable and interesting claim from a believer: that we can differentiate between two exact copies of a person at the moment that the copy occurs, because one of them will not have a "soul". I think that the conversation could have been a lot shorter if they had directly addressed that claim.
shmeebegek1 1 year ago
do you know what i mean though? haha.
Toobsurfur 1 year ago
i mean the big bang is a good theory and is probably true in my opinion but how did it come about? if god did it where did he come from? it's an unanswerable question. there is no explanation that can satisfy the human mind. everything else in Nature makes sense to me ( determinism, the laws of physics) but where did it come from and when matter evolves over billions of years why does a conscious, feeling, seeing mind come into existence? why doesn't it all just happen. it's fucking amazing!!
Toobsurfur 1 year ago
I just find it amazing and unexplainable that we have a consciousness( i don't like to say "have a consciousness" because that may be defined in many ways but i should say that we "have this experience, we feel, we see, we don't just react to stimuli( well we do but we are also here to experience it)) This is one of the most peculiar things in Nature. there are two things that make me wonder about god. 1) the fact that we have this experience. 2) the fact that anything exists at all...
Toobsurfur 1 year ago
... I believe that the laws of physics determine what events will take place. I believe that any decisions we make or any thoughts we have are determined by the laws of physics like the caller said and i agree with how he said we are just machines moving and changing as time passes in such a way that is determined by physics. So why do we have this consciousness and why do we actually see this picture in front of our face? i don't say their is or isn't a god. i don't know....
Toobsurfur 1 year ago
@Toobsurfur You sound like Spinoza to me.
SepirothUltima 1 year ago
Hypothetically let's say the atoms in your body were disassembled and therefore you were dead, and then they were all put back in there original place, every atom exactly where it was before dis assembly, every single detail identical to the original you, every electron every quark, i mean EVERYTHING. Would your consciousness spontaneously come back and you would be able to experience the world again? Or would it be another consciousness and you would stay dead...
Toobsurfur 1 year ago
The only sole we all have is an arsehole.
HURUHRA 1 year ago
HAHAHA! Jen wins the show for the comment at the end! Her mind started drifting after realizing that the caller started going nowhere with his soul argument ... then *bing*
Love the show!
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
I have not a single sole since I sold my shoes to the devil
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
soul can be compared to only electrical and chemical responses to stimuli in the brain, and personalty can be compared to the way we respond to that stimuli based on memory. just the most reasonable speculation :3
misnoto 1 year ago
What if you just clone your genitals and played with them. Would that be masterbation?
LORDNAG1 1 year ago
@LORDNAG1 no it would be jacking off a clone
misnoto 1 year ago
we are inside the matrix, your soul is a computer program (like agent smith). how do i know? i just know it
robertwc82 1 year ago
Is this the "gingers have souls!" kid?
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
Jen fuckin pwns the show.
theshaggyskinhead 1 year ago
AND JEN WINS THE SHOW!!!!!!!! I'M LAUGHING HERE!!! YOU ARE THE BEST, JEN! LOVE YOU, MATT!!!! :)
bekacynthia 1 year ago 42
The woman is very annoying.
gary83uk 1 year ago
someday computers will have consciousness [and a soul will come for free :)]
nrgshkl093 1 year ago
Jenn wtf LOL!!!!??
kamilo19880000 1 year ago
why are they asking the caller to prove something that is beyond science using science? GOD IS NOT OF THIS WORLD!
atjmfchick93 1 year ago
@atjmfchick93 GOD IS NOT... PEDIOD!
kamilo19880000 1 year ago
@atjmfchick93 GOD IS NOT... PERIOD!
kamilo19880000 1 year ago
@atjmfchick93 than he's useless
kaga13 1 year ago
@atjmfchick93 If he is not of this world than he doesn't have any influence on it and shouldn't even be considered. Believers claim he does influence things and want to base laws and moral principles on their religion...therefore it should be proveable before we accept it...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
Embarrassing for the caller =/
Hope he learnt something.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
jen wins the show LOL that was funny hahaha. I would say both hahahaha
thelivingfire 1 year ago
Hey Matt, what is this feeling that atheism is worth a damn? Why? What is this feeling you have that makes you convinced that there is no God?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
A dog looks in the mirror and does not recognize himself (could say he is not conscious of himself), a chimpanzee looks in the mirror and recognizes himself (could say he is conscious of himself). We could say a chimpanzee has consciousness and a dog has not. Does that mean dogs have no souls but chimps do?
47saeed 1 year ago
@47saeed Well, first, you'd have to define what a soul is and also prove its existence. Otherwise, the question makes no sense.
foolifee 1 year ago
@foolifee This question was meant for Theists that think a soul is a spirit and not part of our physical being; they think it lives on when we die. I am an Atheist I believe a soul is a product our mind which itself is the product of the higher order part of our brain, the part of our brain that makes us conscious of ourselves.
47saeed 1 year ago
me, myself and i, hell i have a 3way here and didnt know it
sage0857 1 year ago
Incest or masturbation ??? HAHA ROFLMAO. I'd call it incest, it's like having sex with your twin ( almost like it).
Achilles9924 1 year ago
09:11 OMFG i cant stop laughing. HAHAHAHA wth she is funny
SilveradoNL 1 year ago
I would agree that the soul is labelled to be consciousness and that they thought to be the same thing, only believers claim that they were inserted into our bodies by God, as if our bodies are mere hollow shells or containers for something to inhabit. If a man loses his memories, never regaining them, would he have a different soul? Consciousness is a byproduct of our brain, but believers say that harming the physical body doesn't damage the soul. So if it isn't consciousness, then what?
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
142 creationists watched this video.
TreuloseTomate 1 year ago
I think their skepticism towards souls is because they assume the soul is the supernatural thing that Christians describe. I would say the soul IS consciousness, which is what I think the caller is trying to say.
Although I would submit that since I agree with much of what the caller is saying and I'm an atheist that the soul he's talking about has NOTHING to do with the existence of God.
TharosTheDragon 1 year ago
lol how the hell does a person think that atoms make decisions.
MillCityPersons 1 year ago
I have a sole. Everyone has a sole. And i can buy 2 new soles at every shoe store.
omnissient 1 year ago 49
@omnissient People without feet don't have a sole and can't go to heaven!
shishimore 1 year ago
there are robots that can learn and do things with that, makes that that they have a sole?
primeyuri 1 year ago
Jens Comment was too funny!!!!!!!!!
KasperKillsTX 1 year ago
It's neither! Masturbation is one person preforming an act to reach orgasm on themselves. It's not incest because it's a clone, not a naturally born twin. It's just sex with another person who happens to have atoms arranged in exactly the same way that yours are.
valkaek 1 year ago 2
I'm more sympathetic to this guy's problem than that of most theists. We have the illusion of "residing" in our bodies rather than being the result of the process that takes place in our brain. I think a machine that can do everything we can do would assert that it has consciousness. I like what Dan Dennett has to say about this.
eswyatt 1 year ago
@eswyatt hi, do you have a link to Dan Dannet talking about this?
zoina21 1 year ago
@zoina21 just put "dan dennett consciousness" in the youtube search field. There are a few talks on this. but i can't put urls in the comments box
eswyatt 1 year ago
so do unconscience people have souls? What about brain dead people, do they lose their soul?
Does a mentally retarded people have souls at all, as they sometimes are not responsible for their own actions?
Bralidiroe 1 year ago
@Bralidiroe
Nope, Nobody has a soul
berniebay 1 year ago 2
Also, at one point the host says that, while his current self and his young self are made up of completely different atoms, they are the same person.
Later, however, he says that he and a copy of him are different persons because they are made entirely of different atoms.
xbobtehalienx 1 year ago
@xbobtehalienx
I caught that point too, I am pretty certain what he was saying was that the atoms that now make him up were always 'his'. Meaning that there was no complete switch. So I interpreted it as, atoms make us up, then we adapt to those atoms, so that redefines us(I would have a whole different set of atoms in me if I had eaten the cake that my friend had).
The issue with the clone is that he was made all at once.
powerchess20002000 1 year ago
@xbobtehalienx
His younger self and present self exist at different times. His clone and his present self exist at the same time.
berniebay 1 year ago
Comment removed
xbobtehalienx 1 year ago
The response to the free will argument is the same thing - it is essentially a straw man response. His counterexamples (intentionally?) confuse freedom to act with frreedom to choose. The deer has complete free will in all of those situations; it has the freedom to choose what courses of action it will pursue. What is restricted is not its ability to choose, but its ability to reach its goals or complete its actions. Choice remains.
"No one has even defined the term soul" - that's the point.
xbobtehalienx 1 year ago
Normally I love the Atheist Experience, but this was terrible. They are spending their whole time criticizing trivial points and steps, and avoiding the actual difficult issue - not that we do not know how to explain consciousness, but that it being supernatural is as plausible an explanation as it being an "emergent process" (which, what the **** does that mean? That's not even an attempt at an explanation) or some other natural thing.
xbobtehalienx 1 year ago
I think "Me and My Clone" would make a great sitcom
xavtron 1 year ago
Jen #WIN
mikedirnt81 1 year ago
To the caller: "Excuse me, sir... Here is the brick wall of logic... Please stop headbutting it." ^_^
theirishfrog 1 year ago
consciousness = chemical reaction.
eldeberry 1 year ago
Atoms themselfs don't have the capacity to make moral decisions .
TheGrassisnice 1 year ago
@TheGrassisnice
false, morals are rules, rules are generated from mind, mind is generated from brain, brain is atoms. Or you said "themselfs" meaning that each atom, taken separately, can't produce morality?
InnerFood 1 year ago
The caller seems completely unable to to test and correct his own thoughts.
lol, those closing comment were funny as hell.
yubarraboo 1 year ago
Jen is nasty....
Shes got lots of naughty thoughts in that innocent exterior.
nonoxynol 1 year ago
best comment on the show, ever :)
Jen ftw :D
beebobox 1 year ago
Jen wins the show, but loses the game.
Acorafication 1 year ago
I love jen
secularenegadether 1 year ago
@secularenegadether I like Jen and Tracy.
untrueman 1 year ago
Dumb caller.
Sgagnot 1 year ago
@preztres: You are always you, but only the you that exists right now, no one else. Ten years ago my consciousness was Very different from what it is today, and I suspect that the difference may be attributed to changes to the neurological pathways in my brain (and the trials and tribulations of late puberty).
MidskakurUlvur 1 year ago
My younger sister still recognizes me because we see each other often, and my DNA has only made Gradual changes to my biological structure over the period of time that she has known me. My older brother, whom I had not seen in 20 years, said, "I hardly recognize you." when we met a couple weeks ago. This was because of the biological changes that happened to my body over the last twenty years, not because I had a new set of atoms...
MidskakurUlvur 1 year ago
About the soul: As you(preztres) have just described it, the soul vs. body debate is essentially an identity issue. This is only part of the issue, but a very important part, and I would say that as an alternative identity to both "the body" and "the soul", one might say, as I have implied earlier, that an identity lies in the perception of the moment.
MidskakurUlvur 1 year ago
I think that this partially demonstrates how malleable the foundations for an identity can be, and how much of it depends on circumstantial things; like personal experience.
MidskakurUlvur 1 year ago
"Jen wins the show." Pure win ^_^
MidskakurUlvur 1 year ago
... that IS the best comment ever
ameldia 1 year ago
6:10
"no, the reason it's not me is because it's a different set of atoms."
could this mean that in 10 years (or however long it takes for the body to completely replace every atom) I am no longer me?
obviously I would still consider myself me, and relatively the same person I was 10 years ago. All my relatives would recognize me as me...
also, I think the concept of the soul could be better understood like this: I am not a body that has a soul... I am a soul, and I have a body.
thoughts?
preztres 1 year ago
Haha, good question by jen at the end
luker4459 1 year ago
"If you clone yourself and have sex with yourself is it incest or masturbation?" It is incest because your clone is your twin, not yourself.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
hmm my brain is me.. my body is mere a tool . i can see your point of view and matt say it .
bertus198 1 year ago
That is not my point of view. My body is a mere tool, my body, including my brain is me. My personality and consciousness is a function of my body. if I had myself cloned, the clone would not be me. It would be another person who would be identical to me, just as a natural twin brother would. If I had a twin, there would not be two me's. There would be me, and my twin brother, two different, though identical, persons. The same would apply if I had a clone.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
if you put your brain in sombody else it stil wout be you
bertus198 1 year ago
We're talking about cloning, not brain transplantation. These are two different things. Once again, my clone would be another person, not me, he would have his brain, not mine. I wonder if you understand what a clone is.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
a clone is a exact copy of your self so why is he not you... out side the point that you know he is a clone
bertus198 1 year ago
For the exact same reason that your twin, also an exact copy of you is not you. Maybe this will help. There is one big difference between a clone and a twin. You and your twin are the same age. You and your clone are not. If I had myself cloned and the clone was born today, I would be 67 years older than my clone. That clone would grew up with his own experiences and memories, not mine. Just as my twin brother of the same age as me would have his own experiences and memories, not mine.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
a twin is not a exact copy becaus he has is own experiences and memories ,lets say you clone your self and you die but the clone dont know he is cloned and that you have die he lives your life and nobody knows
bertus198 1 year ago
You just answered your own question. A twin is not an exact copy any more, or less, than a clone is. Each has his own experiences & memories just as I said. The only difference between a clone and a twin is the age of the two individuals. Whether i die or not the clone is living his own life, not mine, and will continue to live his life, not mine, after I die, unless he dies first. Do you have any idea what a clone is?
Kailoa36 1 year ago
Do you have any idea what a clone is? that why we have this.. debate.. we have a diffrend ideei what clone precieces is .i say the clone is you der is no diffrends that he have diffrend memeries after that is the same as you expierences new things
bertus198 1 year ago
Now we get to the root of the problem. You don't know what a clone is. My clone would not be me any more than my twin. A human and its clone are two separate persons who happen to have identical genetic material, DNA. That is all. They have their own lives, experiences, and memories. Another problem we have is that English is obviously not your primary language. Google "cloning" in your own language. Maybe then you can understand it. Good Bye!
Kailoa36 1 year ago
its not al genetics what you are its more than that
bertus198 1 year ago
I don't think the caller was talking about a clone in the biological sense but more in a hypothetical star trek transporter kinda way. If your body was completely destructed and rebuilt would you still be the same entity? In the end it comes down to weather or not conciousness is a purely physical thing or something else
notnameless 1 year ago
It would be incest in a technical sense. However, I don't know whether it would be incest in the legal sense, since I don't know if any laws have been passed anywhere yet defining the relationship between a person and his/her clone. For that matter I don't even know if any laws define sex between natural siblings of the same gender as incest. Legally it might be just, as Woody Allen might put, sex with someone you love.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
do you christians realize you're worshiping an atheist? the god that you nutjobs believe to exist is by your own description an atheist. he doesn't believe in any higher power. you guys should take his hint
AmetdeathA 2 years ago