Popular immortality is impossible

[Spade Lead]

Well, for all we know, we 'die' every time we lose conscious thought, yet nobody loses any sleep (excuse the pun) over sleeping every day.

There is this nice MMO out there called Fallen Earth where you're simply cloned every time you die with full memory transfer trough a collar all clones wear.

So when you come to out of the clone pod, just how much would you care you're not the original. You would probably agonize over it the first or second time, but knowing human nature, soon you would just shrug at dieing and being cloned again and go about your bussines as usual, since you don't really have the feeling you are not 'you' anyomore...

Again, Cloning is a different process than Cylon Consciousness Transfer.

 

[Maladict]

I don't believe in souls or anything like that, so from my point of view everything an individual is is a combination of their 'hardware' (bodies) and 'software' (memories, ways of thinking, etc). If you duplicate them perfectly then yes, it's still the same person. There's absolutely no observable difference, so they must be the same. And as others have pointed out, our continuous stream of conciousness is interrupted all the time anyway.

In fact, I'd probably go so far to say that our hardware doesn't really matter. Only our thoughts and memories matter for defining us. If I wake up tomorrow in the body of a different person, or a robot, or a Star Destroyer targeting computer, still with all my memories and still thinking in the same way, I'll still consider myself me.

 

[evilstonermonkey]

Well, for all we know, we 'die' every time we lose conscious thought, yet nobody loses any sleep (excuse the pun) over sleeping every day.

There is this nice MMO out there called Fallen Earth where you're simply cloned every time you die with full memory transfer trough a collar all clones wear.

So when you come to out of the clone pod, just how much would you care you're not the original. You would probably agonize over it the first or second time, but knowing human nature, soon you would just shrug at dieing and being cloned again and go about your bussines as usual, since you don't really have the feeling you are not 'you' anyomore...

Again, Cloning is a different process than Cylon Consciousness Transfer.

Well yes, but I think the example being pointed out is not being referred to for the cloning, but the fact that a clone is made and then the consciousness transferred over.

Personally I think that I am my mind in the philosophical sense, i.e. I am my thoughts, my memories, my experiences and imagination. My brain is just what contains all of those things, and my body contains that. If my consciousness were to be shifted from one body to another I would still be alive. If a copy of my consciousness were tranferred that would be different, that would in my thinking be an exremely comprehensive clone, but my understanding of what the Cylons do is a full memory transfer from corpse to warmbody.

 

[Tropical Bob]

I believe the issue you're trying to debate here, and what everyone seems to be circumventing, is both the definition of "me" and the human soul. A lot of the arguments made to a transfer of consciousness or a 100% exact copy not being you is simply because it's a different vessel.

What it looks like we're getting into is that either you're defining "me" as both your original physical and mental incarnation, or you're equating "me" with the idea of your soul, which is tied irrevocably to your original body, or a mixture of the two.

The way I see it is that there is no such thing as a "soul", as it's commonly thought of. Also that "me" is defined completely by the contents of your brain, but not even the brain itself. In other words, your consciousness, thought processes, memories, etc. So if all of that was transferred to even something like a robotic cockroach, it would still be "me". Whatever body your consciousness resides in is irrelevant, as it is merely an extension of your consciousness.

This of course leads to the almost-paradox of the Star Trek: Next Generation Riker transporter incident, where a 100% exact duplicate is created. Which one is "me" in the case of two "mes"? In my view, they would both be "me".

 

[the Dept of Science]

You never know...

 

[Adecristo]

Hmm, tharglet 's post made me think about something.
Let's say you've got almost your whole body replaced this way, except brain. And the consciousness is somewhat associated to brain, so you can say you're still yourself, not losing your 'soul' / sentience, etc. and the rest of your body is somewhat like implant, Warhammer 40.00 Dreadnought way.

And now's the tricky part. Instead of "killing" your brain and transplanting whole its informations to some sort of supercomputer that is able to function the same way as brain (exactly the same way, but without the need to have the life support, including veins etc. - so it can last "forever". Or maybe with something more durable than human cells. Just for greater longevity. We're talking fiction here, so it's not cheating right here.) let's just replace a part of your brain. The rest of your brain is communicating with this new, robotic part, like it was a living one before. It has all the data transferred.
You should feel pretty much the same as before, shouldn't you? You never shut down your whole brain. You convert it in very small steps, part by part, hundreds of times.
Until you're 100% robotic.

When would be the difference between being alive and dead? Being a human being, and being a vessel? Would you lose your consciousness/sentience/self-awareness on the way? And if yes, on which point?

I'm just curious.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

Reading the posts in this thread, I can't help but notice an awful lot of assumption. We're assuming that consciousness transfer, even if it became scientifically possible, would theoretically send the you that you are into this new body. To everyone around you, your personality, your memories, everything that made you "you" is in this new body, but how can they really know that "you" made it into this new body?

What I mean is...well, I don't know what I mean. I remember as a kid thinking about how my consciousness is unique. I can't see my own face without a mirror, in a sense my consciousness is "trapped" within this body, and cannot be shared to other bodies. Even if I had a brother, and we lived the same lives, looked and dressed exactly alike, and even thought the same things, we'd still have two completely different consciousnesses, and although we could look at each other, we couldn't look at "ourselves," if you catch my drift.

Although it technically isn't, I feel like this "Twin" scenario would be the same as a "Cloned-Consciousness" scenario. In other words, your memories, knowledge and experiences get transferred into this new body, and this new "you" continues to live your life, but the "you" that died, the "you" that was looking out from your "original" eyes, experienced things with your "original" senses, would not transfer over. To put it more bluntly, your memories and experiences get transferred, but the soul does not.

Of course, this is all skepticism, as science has yet to determine the nature of the soul. I'm sure if consciousness transfer came into existence, few would really care. As I said, if we're assuming that consciousness transfer is "perfect," then no one on the outside would really be able to tell that you were a different "soul." Then again, maybe it really would send your "soul" into the new body as well, and you'd continue your life as though nothing had happened.

 

[Nobby]

I agree with the op. I think that comparing something like this to a deep sleep or being in a coma is inaccurate. Even if you were to be completely copied physically including all your memories, it's still not you. It would be another person who has all the same memories and experiences but isn't you.

We are talking about Consciousness Transfer, not Cloning.

But technically, every organ in your body IS replaced in a natural process every seven years.

Transferring your consciousness to a computer (Ala the Cylons) and then into a new body is not a "Different" you. Nothing about your personality changes, just your body. That means, if I placed your conscience in the targeting computer of a Star Destroyer or a Death Star (Ala IG-88) you would still be "You," even though your body would no longer be "Yours."

Your consciousness is you, no matter what vessel contains it.

Sorry I wasn't very clear what I meant was that in the context of what the op said it wouldn't be a true transfer of consciousness and therefore isn't immortality because it isn't you. Rather it's a copy of a consciousness that once existed, but either doesn't anymore or has grown to be different.

 

[Jonluw]

Honestly, if I inserted all om my memories into a clone, I would be willing to say that the clone is me.

He has all the data I have, and the same genetic presets for interpreting the data. I feel confident that the clone would act exactly like me. If I and the clone could occupy the same space at the moment when my memories were transferred to him, and I would stay alive, I dare bet that he would move exactly like me from that point on and we would never cease to occupy the same space as I do.

However, if said clone did not occupy the same space as me (since that is impossible after all), the clone would react to his environment in a different way, albeit the exact way I would have reacted had I been standing where he is.

As time passes and the clone comes to take different choices from me (this owing only to the fact that I am still in existence) we would become two separate persons.

However, if I was to perish in the moment my memories were transferred to my exact genetic duplicate, I would indeed classify that clone as me. The body and brain is but a vessel for the mind, which is no more than accumulated data.

 

[Spade Lead]

Sorry I wasn't very clear what I meant was that in the context of what the op said it wouldn't be a true transfer of consciousness and therefore isn't immortality because it isn't you. Rather it's a copy of a consciousness that once existed, but either doesn't anymore or has grown to be different.

But with the Cylons, it is a perfect transfer of all their memories, thought processes, prejudices, loves, hates, interests, etc. Everything that makes a human indistinguishable from a Cylon, would transfer. The Cylons don't notice a difference, except that dying is painful, and they remember it. So how is it not immortality, if the very essence of who they are is retained?


Spoiler Alert:

That is the point of the show. To become perfect, the Cylons have to give up their immortality, and learn to accept death. Once they do, we become equals, and the war ends.

If they aren't truly immortal, or at least don't feel that they continue life as before (And face it, there is no way to tell if you are different, unless someone tells them they are acting different). In the show, it is obvious to all the other Cylons that resurrection is a perfect technique, because Caprica 6 is the same before she dies as after. (Not counting the radical personality alterations she undergoes following her feelings of guilt for the annihilation of Caprica...) So are all the other Cylons. Some more than others. The priest never changes in personality at ALL, even going so far as to say he hates the way dying feels, indicating that getting shot in the face is not the first death he has undergone.

So, for the sake of argument, everything that makes you, you, gets transferred. At least according to OP's decision to refer to BSG.

 

[Drakos.Amatras]

If you die, but your memories are placed in something else, that vessel is NOT you.

Depends on what your definition of "you(rself)" is. Even within your original body itself, countless cells are dying every moment and being replaced by new cells. So technically, even you of a few hours ago is not you of the present. If you think one hour is too small a period, there's the whole lifespan of aging. If this kind of fickle, constantly shifting body can be considered original, I wouldn't mind a new body because it wouldn't be much different. I'll most like look different from now, but it's just the appearance of the vessel, so nothing I consider vital. (If I can get a mechanical body, all the better; it'll still have wear and tear, as every material does, but at least I'd be free of the hassle of the biological one.)

Possible or not, consciousness transfer has pretty wicked potentials, good or bad.

 

[Alexnader]

I've had conversations with my dad about this and it's a terrifying subject really.

Anyway, you say that if a perfect clone is made of you it's a separate entity and will not be you. I agree with this. However we should go deeper. What makes "you" you? When you wake up are you the same person that fell asleep? Hell are you the same person you were 5 minutes ago? Or when you (hopefully) started reading my post?

There is an iteration of me typing this post. I know that for sure. Beyond that I'm hesitant to make any statements of fact.

 

[Rblade]

A similar discussion would be, if you teleported Star trek style. broken down into molecules and then reassembled on the other side. How are you to say your still the same person. Or is your quantem clone the same guy as you? I thought on it for a while, and I have to conclude I simply don't know

 

[Tropical Bob]

However, if said clone did not occupy the same space as me (since that is impossible after all), the clone would react to his environment in a different way, albeit the exact way I would have reacted had I been standing where he is.

As time passes and the clone comes to take different choices from me (this owing only to the fact that I am still in existence) we would become two separate persons.

I would argue that even though you are "separate" people, he is indeed you as he would be reacting the exact same as you would if you were in his exact situation.

Essentially, a clone in a different set of situations is just a parallel you, a you that could have been.

 

[WanderingFool]

-snip

I know this topic sounds a little cheesy, but I'm interested to see if anyone has though similarly. Also if anyone can prove me wrong that would be great, because I have a strong hunch that I'm over analyzing. I know there are some repeating reasons above, but I'm writing this procrastinating studying for finals, it's 3:30AM and I'm writing this down in what can only be compared to a fever state.

I would safely say you are over analyzing the hell out of this. And no, I cant speak in terms of every fictional character or race that pocesses immortality like this, but what you are saying does make sense. But I suppose the question is what makes a person a person. If its just the physical, than a copy of that person is just that. But if its beyond the physical, than can we really say that by transfering their... "Being"... into another vessel, they have not achieved a form of immortality? I think Immortlaity, the term itself, can be used in a varity of manners, so I would say that while they might not have achieved the manner of immortality like a God or gods, they achieved a form of immortality.

 

[Jonluw]

However, if said clone did not occupy the same space as me (since that is impossible after all), the clone would react to his environment in a different way, albeit the exact way I would have reacted had I been standing where he is.

As time passes and the clone comes to take different choices from me (this owing only to the fact that I am still in existence) we would become two separate persons.

I would argue that even though you are "separate" people, he is indeed you as he would be reacting the exact same as you would if you were in his exact situation.

Essentially, a clone in a different set of situations is just a parallel you, a you that could have been.

How 'bout this for a discussion:
Looking at it from the point of view of the multiverse theory; are all the different 'yous' in the different universes really you?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

That's what all the skin flecks are from, and how you can get cancer/age - bad cell renewal.

I'm going to take issue with that. Not only is 'cancer' an umbrella term that encompasses many different kinds of disease, no one actually knows for certain what causes most cancers. Bad cell renewal sounds like a poor explanation and I doubt, even if true for a type of cancer, it would explain them all.

Hence the word 'can'. There's quite a well-informed study that

Cancer pathogenesis is traceable back to DNA mutations that impact cell growth and metastasis.

And bad cell renewal is covering that.

Cancer is fundamentally a disease of failure of regulation of tissue growth. In order for a normal cell to transform into a cancer cell, the genes which regulate cell growth and differentiation must be altered.

Croce CM (January 2008). "Oncogenes and cancer" (PDF) [http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra072367]. The New England journal of medicine 358 (5): 502?11. doi:10.1056/NEJMra072367. PMID 18234754.

It's reasonably accurate to surmise that Cancer is caused by a degradation of the body's ability to replicate healthy cells and an increase of tumorous ("bad") cells. Although there are a myriad possible causes of the degradation.

 

[Nudu]

Every X years(I think 7 or 10) all cells in your body are replaced. You are a clone of yourself 10 years ago.

I don't think the "self" as we like to think of it really exist. I think a person is just a collection of memories and ideas, and if something else, even if every particle in that body was different, would still be the same person.

 

[Tropical Bob]

How 'bout this for a discussion:
Looking at it from the point of the multiverse theory; are all the different 'yous' in the different universes really you?

In one sense, along the vein of what I said in my previous post, yes. They are all you, albeit something like all branches off of the central concept of "you".