The opposite of the death penalty.

[Flyndaran]

So everything's quantifiable, measurable, and reproducible in a lab, except for the human mind. But there's no such thing as a soul, or the supernatural.

...

Right.

No. A mind could be reproduceable with far more advanced technology and psychology than we have now. It would just be a completely different mind that mine. A computer emulation could be a Patrick, just not the same Patrick as I am.
It doesn't take a soul to look at two different but nearly identical objects and say that they aren't the same thing.

[BroomJockey]

It doesn't take a soul to look at two different but nearly identical objects and say that they aren't the same thing.

FTFY. After all, I'm not talking nearly. I'm talking exactly-

If you can't tell the difference, even yourself, then how can you know? Both you and the double would both think you're you. There'd be no way to prove it empirically unless they watched the clone from growth to awakening, and put a little mark on him somewhere. So again, if identical minds, in identical bodies, which can't even tell each other apart, how are you different people? Something other than "I'm me" please. We've established now that you'd not know you're you.

[Flyndaran]

FTFY. After all, I'm not talking nearly. I'm talking exactly-

If you can't tell the difference, even yourself, then how can you know? Both you and the double would both think you're you. There'd be no way to prove it empirically unless they watched the clone from growth to awakening, and put a little mark on him somewhere. So again, if identical minds, in identical bodies, which can't even tell each other apart, how are you different people? Something other than "I'm me" please. We've established now that you'd not know you're you.

So? The universe doesn't give a rat's ass about our inability to distinguish objects and people. I would assume that two objects are different and would need impossible to give proof that they are truly identical, because in all other ways two objects have differences.
I am me, which is distinct from some other me. Continuity of consciousness must be maintained, not just appear to be maintained by our inability to determine it being otherwise.

[Slytovhand]

Just to throw a spanner into the works.... nothing is 'identical' with anything else, unless it occupies exactly the same time and place - in which case it is itself. In regards to the above, it means that at a sub-atomic level, there will be differences... their time signatures will be different.

[BroomJockey]

Just to throw a spanner into the works.... nothing is 'identical' with anything else,

*bzzt* Quantum entanglement.

[Slytovhand]

*bzzt* Quantum entanglement.

huh???? (sheeesh... how many do I have to put in for it to say I've got enough characters???)

[BroomJockey]

huh???? (sheeesh... how many do I have to put in for it to say I've got enough characters???)

10 Characters.

Also, quantum entanglement is the effect seen of when you alter the spin on one electron, the spin on its quantum twin is affected in the same way at the same time, no matter the distance apart. They are, in every way, identical. Thus, there IS something that can be identical to something else, thus it isn't required that they occupy the same time and space.

[Slytovhand]

Ah, yeah, heard of that, just didn't know the term for it.

but... you're example pre-supposes that you can 'grow' a perfect twin.

Besides, if they're in 2 different places, then they're in 2 different spaces.. and thus, not identical in one sense.

[BroomJockey]

Besides, if they're in 2 different places, then they're in 2 different spaces.. and thus, not identical in one sense.

You're expanding the definition of identical to include location, which isn't a physical characteristic inherent to an object. After all, something's location can change without changing the object.

[Slytovhand]

I'm including the definition of identical to include location and time. Thus, it's ok for that to happen... At such and such a time, a thing is at such and such a location. For something to be 'identical' in the strictest sense, then yes, time and place would be essential... otherwise, they're just incredibly similar (it's a physics thing...or maybe it was philosophy )


And this has only come about cos Flyn refuses to accept that an entity with basically the exact same physical structure (on a macro level), and with the (apparently) exact same memories, is basically the 'same' person.. it's a big call, and I tend to think they're 2 individuals. Since we're talking about sci-fi, what about all those episodes with altered timelines, and a doppelganger with the exact same memories up to a convergence point shows up...? (did Star Trek do it first? When a transporter beam got reflected back due to the ionic atmosphere, but part of the beam got through, and they were able to stablise the signal... and probably reversed the polarity at the same time )

[BroomJockey]

(it's a physics thing...or maybe it was philosophy )

Gotta be philosophy, since location isn't an inherent property, and due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you can't even tell where something is on the subatomic level without affecting it. After all, if location was inherent, then moving something would change it, and putting something in its place would give it the properties of the object formerly there.

[Slytovhand]

Right.. and you're going to believe a guy who wasn't even sure???

And no, just putting 'something in it's place' wouldn't make it the same - because it would have an entirely different structure and positioning of atoms, molecules, etc, different 'energy signatures' etc. Besides, I did also mention 'time'. For something to be 'identical' to something else (and not just 'very similar') they need to have the exact same structure, energy levels (including the effects of gravity!), location, etc. Philosophically, there's also consideration of time. It's easy to say "I'm me"... but are you the same you as 15 years ago? Is it the same person? We know the 2 aren't 'identical'.. so what are we going to use to determine differences? (and we're back to the original thought pattern... can you kill yourself if you've created a duplicate? What if the clone kills you? Well, I would presume that if it's ok to kill your clone - because they're not really you - then it would be ok for the clone to kill you - as it has no inherent existence as a person.... wouldn't that be fair?)

Actually, the idea of movement = change isn't new. I'm not the same person I was 2 seconds ago - for a number of reasons.

But this has sort of taken a bit of a tangent...

(on a related note, I once saw myself through someone else's eyes! I was looking at her, and just had this flash for a couple of seconds of how she saw me... literally... not my imagination... that was cool! (and it's those sort of things that make me consider 'supernatural' events..))

[Flyndaran]

...

(on a related note, I once saw myself through someone else's eyes! I was looking at her, and just had this flash for a couple of seconds of how she saw me... literally... not my imagination... that was cool! (and it's those sort of things that make me consider 'supernatural' events..))

As one that likes to think scientifically, I really wish I had an undeniable supernatural experience. My girlfriend believes she did, and so do many of my relatives. Sadly, I have never witnessed anything that cannot be explained more easily by normal means. If there really is weird stuff happening, then why does it never hit us skeptics? Seems rather odd.

[Boozy]

Seems rather odd.

Seems like a good subject for a new thread.

I say that in all seriousness, not because I'm trying to head off thread drift. I'd be interested in hearing about the "supernatural" experiences of others, and whether or not they consider them genuine or explainable by science.

Edit: I have started a new thread. http://www.fratching.com/showthread....7805#post27805