• Sordid@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Easy, build the clone without destroying the original, then test if they share perceptions and memories. Show one a playing card and ask the other what card it was or something. Proving that two people don’t have the same consciousness is pretty trivial, and I don’t know of any philosophical schools that would dispute that.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It seems a silly question to ask, but interesting to think about because I can’t think of a way to prove the intuitively obvious answer: how does one know that the duplicate doesn’t somehow inherit the original consciousness, and some new one with the memories and personality of it doesn’t get immediately generated in the original body?

      My point is meant to be, that proving that two duplicates are not the same people as eachother, is not quite the same thing as proving that a duplicate is not the original person.

      • Sordid@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        how does one know that the duplicate doesn’t somehow inherit the original consciousness, and some new one with the memories and personality of it doesn’t get immediately generated in the original body?

        Consciousness is brain activity. New brain = new activity = new consciousness.

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The activity of something is essentially information (consider how computer programs are ultimately just the activity of the components of a computer). If I copy information from one substrate to another, and do so with no changes, I don’t have any new information. Applying that back to brains, assuming that consciousness really is only brain activity (which seems highly likely, but since we don’t really understand the nature of consciousness, isn’t completely proven), then I’d disagree with the new brain= new activity step

          • Sordid@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If I copy information from one substrate to another, and do so with no changes, I don’t have any new information.

            But you have a different instance of it. If there were no distinction, copyright wouldn’t exist.

      • Sordid@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup, pretty much. It’s a shame Star Trek recognizes and points out this problem but then chickens out of it actually having any consequences.