/sci/ - Science & Math

case 3: you have nasty sex with yourself

To quote Boltzmann: "Fine, go do it."

>>3208962
much more believable than 1 and 2

No

If you made an exact copy of yourself, your brain and neurons would retain the same memories as you.

An exact biological copy wouldn't prove a soul.

well i guess if you could make a carbon copy it would have to have all of the same qualities but would that mean its on the same time frame as you? does it start do to everything you do? probably not because of the factor of environement

depending on where this copy is it will experiences things from a different perspective even if it is simply a foot away even if you had it stand a short short distance away from you it still has a different perspective on life. this means that everyone will have a different life simply because we can not be inside of each other at the same exact point like a ghost because we have mass

if god exists god is everything, he is not a person, we are people.

stupid people and their sky wizards

>>3208957
Both are you. Each believes itself the original. Each is right. But their brains aren't connected and so they don't share consciousness.

>>3208997
this, basically you, oh wait shit, look at my captcha!

anyways as i was saying, even if your carbon copy looked at you and you at it, there would be different background(eg road behind you and a tree behind your carbon copy) that would automatically lead to different brain activity, and you wouldnt be 100% the same anymore. thats all it takes.

>>3209005
Happens even faster than that.
Moving one of you to the left and the other to the right just to get you out of the same space has an effect before the copies even get made.

Neither one could prove souls.

What effect is the soul supposed to have on either subject in either case?


In case one, is the individual supposed to be experiencing both bodies simultaneously? If so, and we can demonstrate that information relayed to one body can be repeated by the other, it would show that there is some non-local component to the human mind. But calling it a soul would be needlessly poetic.

And in case two, well, we would expect two separate people to form. Two separate people who, up to the copying, shared an exact history.

Define a soul well enough that there is a difference between its existence and non-existence, then we'll tell you what happens.

OP here, I had to study so i couldn't come before.
I see that I made some mistakes... First, soul was just the simplest way of explaining this. I share no beliefs with the spiritual folk. I have never, and nor do I now, believe in anything like the thing most people would call a soul. This is just one of my thoughts, we make an exact copy of the physical body, but we have different consciousness', that must mean that there is something that we didn't copy, something not part of the biological body. I don't believe in this, I just wanted your opinion on it.
I see the environment argument, and it's pretty correct I guess, but I believe that environment has no effect on do you feel yourself or not. The person we are copying, person x, has no memories, has no environment, the only think he or she has is his consciousness'.

>>3209232
Are you fucking retarded? Are the same atoms in both bodies? NO ? Seriously? maybe they are not so equal after all.

Memory is materialistic.
Thinking goes through materialistic ways to save it as memories in your brain.

As soon the exact same copy comes to exist, he will have the same memories and whatever the hells as you, but will start diverging from the moment he exists and can perceive. He is not stimulated in the same way you are because he is taking up a different space, orientation, etc.. than you.
You would be 2 different persons sharing un uncanny resemblance in appearance and past.

>>3209622
This is just theoretical. I don't believe it either. Insulting has never done much for science, there must be a better way you could say it.

>>3209607
Yeah, but I said there is no environment, no inputs, or at least they have same inputs. I make an exact copy. Now, if something truly random exist, like an internal input in the brain or something that's probably a different story.

will there be a way to "display" or "share" your consciousness in the future

>>3209798

I'd like that.

The thing is, since you both have the exact same memories, life experiences, and body, you are both the same person until the copy experiences something you don't. At that point you two become two different versions of yourself.

Also, a soul is supposed to be supernatural, meaning there is no way to possibly see it or any evidence of it

>>3209622
Could not have said it better.

>>3209787
>This is just theoretical. I don't believe it either. Insulting has never done much for science, there must be a better way you could say it.

I didn't see anything insulting in the way he said that.

Unless you meant >>3209607

>>3209607

Yes, I meant this guy, the one that called me retarded... I think the rest of the reply was still for the dude that had a good argument.

how are memories even stored? is there any guarantee even an exact copy would retain any memories? and in any case it would definitely be two separate individuals. Sort of related, I read about a cruel experiment where researchers severed the connections between a cat's brain halves, as well as the cross connections with the eyes (so basically, each brain half only had one eye). When covering an eye, the cat would have to re-learn anything previously thaught to it, which was not the case if only the halves OR the eyes were severed.

Stimuli from the environment shapes the physical structure of your brain, represented as experience. The physical structure of your brain, and it's neural pathways culminate to yield your particular brand of subjective experience, or "conscience". Were you to be cloned atom per atom, motion for motion than you would be two seperate entities occupying two different points in space, while being identical. You would quickly diverge in this aspect as your difference would accumulate as you from your now different frames of reference recieved new, and varying input. Input that differs alters the physical structure of your brains in different manners proportionate to whatever stimuli you're exposed to, and yields two distinct individuals.

>>3213047
I've already said there's no input.

>>3208957
SOULS DON'T EXIST

There has never been any evidence for the soul. It is as made up as Santa Clause or god.

\THREAD

>>3213022

Memories are stored as associations between neurons. Simply put, a memory of a game of basketball when you were young would be one that ties the concepts portrayed within the memory to a trigger. If that trigger (a sensitive neural pathway) were the concept of a basketball, the stimuli of this neural pathway would elicit the associated memory aforementioned, and all of the concepts integral to the memory.

>>3213062
Go on /b/, you would fit there very well. Provide evidence or at least say why you think so. I don't believe in god or souls either...

>>3213056

then you simply ignore the portion about input creating diverging entities. If you were to somehow create a copy of yourself atom per atom, you would be two identical entities in every single way down to the thought passing through your mind at the very instant of occurrence as far as I can say. Unless there is some random aspect to the equation, whatever was happening in your mind at the time of the cloning would as well be occurring in your clones brain. I'm unaware of any random aspects that could be responsible for such a thing.

>>3213070
>provide evidence for things that don't exist

You don't understand logic and reasoning do you?

>>3213070

>>3213070
Are you really this stupid?

>>3213072
Maybe something on a quantum level? I don't know anything about that, but I've heard stuff about particles doing random shit. I don't understand how something random is possible though. If anyone has an idea, please explain. Keep in mind that I'm 15 and newtonian physics is as far as I got with my official education. I'm a determinist, but I would like anyone to prove it wrong (in a way I could understand).

>>3213070
THERE IS NO PROOF THAT SOULS (or god) EXIST!

Isn't the lack of any fucking proof what-so-fucking-ever evidence enough?

What are you 12? 14?

>>3213098
It seem random.
Note the seem.

>>3213098
>determinist

You are wrong. Read a fucking book.

\thread

>>3213109
Quantum mechanics is probablistic. It doesn't just "seem" so, it actually fucking is.

>>3209005
and everyone else saying the clone would be different.

Can you honestly say you would become significantly any different just by having slightly different experiences?

For example, whether you went shopping today, or stayed in playing video games, would that really affect you so that the next day each example would be a different person or would you respond to both circumstances the way you're used to and not change one bit?

You probably wouldn't diverge at all and both you and your clone would remain set in your way barring some traumatic, life changing event happening to one.

>>3213110

Dude, as I said I don't understand most of these things, but determinism seems to be the most logical explanation to me, so I stick with it. If you have some books you'd like to recommend, just say so. If I'm wrong I'd like to educate myself on the subject... This board consists of two kinds of people, actual scientists who provide explanation for their claims and people like you who just shout their beliefs around with no explanation. Guess who is contributing to the conversation more?